Case 2405721/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Carr v Estée Lauder Cosmetics Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405721/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Mrs P Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Carr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a counter manager for the Le Labo concession at Selfridges Trafford Centre, was dismissed on 9 May 2022 following a disciplinary process in which the respondent treated the matter as gross misconduct. The Tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge Phil Allen with Mr A Egerton and Mrs P Owen, heard the case over 23-26 July 2024 and unanimously found that the dismissal was not unfair and that the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract without notice on account of the claimant's fundamental breach of contract.
On disability, the Tribunal found that the claimant was a person with a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression at the relevant time, but did not accept that he was disabled by reason of cranial damage. The indirect disability discrimination complaint, which concerned a PCP requiring employees under disciplinary investigation to remember and give evidence about the events in question, was not well-founded and was dismissed. The associated reasonable adjustments complaint was also dismissed.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. Liability issues were determined first, alongside certain remedy issues identified at the outset; as all liability complaints failed, no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal not well-founded; claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim not well-founded; respondent was entitled to terminate without notice on the basis of the claimant's fundamental breach (gross misconduct). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination complaint not well-founded and dismissed. Tribunal found the claimant was a person with a disability (depression) at the relevant time but did not prove disability arising from cranial damage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 section 19
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 & 21
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.