Case 2406254/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Shaw v Interserve Catering Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406254/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue judgment only. Employment Judge Benson found that Miss J Shaw was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression and anxiety between April 2019 and 20 July 2019.
The tribunal recorded that, as a result of that finding, the disability discrimination claim and the unfair dismissal claim could proceed. It also stated that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal relied upon all issues set out in the claimant's Scott Schedule.
The tribunal further limited the discrimination allegations to those numbered 13 to 24 in the Scott Schedule. No liability findings on the underlying claims and no remedy award were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that Miss J Shaw was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression and anxiety between April 2019 and 20 July 2019, and the discrimination allegations were restricted to Scott Schedule items 13 to 24. | Other | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal complaint relied upon all issues set out in the claimant's Scott Schedule, and that the unfair dismissal claim could proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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.