Case 2403961/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Mele v B&M Retail Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403961/2023
- Decision date
- 4 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs L Heath, Mrs J Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Mele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who had DVT, complained that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by requiring her to perform warehouse operative duties. The Tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring warehouse operatives to undertake warehouse operative duties, and that those duties would have placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her disability. It also found that the respondent knew of the disadvantage from February 2021.
The Tribunal found that the discrimination complaint was brought in time because the uncertainty about the claimant's duties was treated as a continuing state of affairs. However, it found that the respondent had not required the claimant to perform warehouse operative tasks after February 2021, and that she had been provided with alternative administrative duties. The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint therefore failed.
The Tribunal also determined that the claimant's contractual role remained Distribution Centre Warehouse Operative under her June 2020 contract. It rejected the contention that the adjusted office-based duties, or a Change of Details request made by a manager, had varied her contract or created a permanent office administrator contract. No remedy issue arose because the claimant's complaints failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21. The Tribunal found the claim was in time but that the respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Reference/declaration concerning particulars of employment under sections 11 and 12 Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal determined that the claimant's contractual job title and position was Distribution Centre Warehouse Operative, not an office administrator role. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen Limited v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Sheikholeslami v The University of Edinburgh
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's
- Lincolnshire Police v Weaver
- section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 12 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.