Case 2307164/2020 · Employment Tribunal
A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307164/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Freeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation and jurisdiction, not a merits determination. The tribunal found that the claimant's effective date of termination was 13 June 2020. It held that the unfair dismissal claim and the unlawful deductions claim were presented outside the ordinary time limits, but that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present them in time because she was suffering from severe alcohol addiction, was admitted to the Manor clinic from 6 October to 3 November 2020, and was not in a position to act or give instructions. The tribunal also accepted that Dr Rice, acting for her, was trying to complete the claim form in circumstances where he had limited access to information and was dealing with the claimant's condition and the family response to it.
The tribunal concluded that the claim form was then presented within a further reasonable period. It accepted that Dr Rice had some misunderstanding about the dismissal date and thought he needed to complete the form with more information before submitting it, but found that his actions in the circumstances were understandable and that the eight-day delay beyond the extended time limit did not prevent a fair hearing. The unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims were therefore allowed to proceed.
On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal held that the pleaded complaint was properly read as alleging a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments and an unfavourable treatment claim under section 15 arising from disability, based on the respondent taking disability-related absences into account through the dismissal process and appeal. It found that this conduct extended over a period and ended on 22 July 2020. If that analysis were wrong, it would in any event extend time on the just and equitable basis given the short delay and the claimant's circumstances. The tribunal did not decide whether the alleged discriminatory acts were made out on the merits and listed the case to proceed further.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 13 June 2020 and held that the claim, presented on 21 October 2020, was out of time but saved because it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a further reasonable period. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary limitation issue only. The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the ordinary time limit but that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and that the claim was brought within a reasonable further period. The merits of any wages claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary time-limit issue only. The tribunal read the pleaded complaint as including failure to make reasonable adjustments and a section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim based on disability-related absence being taken into account through the dismissal and appeal. It held that this was capable of amounting to conduct extending over a period ending on 22 July 2020 and, alternatively, that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis. The merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- continuing act under s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Bexley Community Centre (T/A Leisure Link) v Robertson
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- DPP v Marshall
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Shultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Midland Bank plc v Samuels
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.