Case 2403406/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Endler v Mrs Victoria Henderson t/a The Spirit Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403406/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Endler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs J Endler had a disability for Equality Act purposes, namely psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and type 2 diabetes. It held that the respondent, Mrs Victoria Henderson t/a The Spirit Group, dismissed her because of something arising in consequence of her disability, and also failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy by dismissal, and that the principal reason for dismissal was pregnancy. On that basis, the claim of discrimination because of pregnancy under section 18(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 succeeded, as did the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that, when the claim was entered, the respondent was in breach of the duty to provide a statement of employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996, so section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 applied. It found a breach of contract in respect of notice and that annual leave due had not been paid.
On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay £15,000 for injury to feelings, £6,484 for losses arising from the discrimination, and that discrimination award was increased by £432 because of the failure to provide written particulars. Interest was awarded in the sums of £1,805 on the injury to feelings award and £519 on the general damages. The respondent was also ordered to pay £108.06 for notice and £277.87 for annual leave, making the total monetary award £24,625.93.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 discrimination arising from disability; the tribunal found the claimant had disabilities including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and type 2 diabetes, and was dismissed because of something arising in consequence of her disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably by dismissal because of pregnancy under section 18(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was pregnancy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | At the time the claim was entered, the respondent was in breach of the duty to provide a statement of employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996; section 38 Employment Act 2002 applied and the discrimination award was increased by £432. | Upheld | — | £432 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,626
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,916
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Equality Act 2010 s.6
- Equality Act 2010 s.15
- Equality Act 2010 ss.20-21
- Equality Act 2010 s.18(2)(a)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.99
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.1
- Employment Act 2002 s.38
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.