Case 2407143/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Galley v Sports Direct.com Retail Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407143/2022
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Mr N Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Galley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Galley worked for Sports Direct from 2013 and became store manager at the Arndale store in 2018. He resigned on 7 July 2022 after a March 2022 performance review, the introduction of a performance improvement plan, and the outcome of a grievance he raised in May 2022. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression, but found that Sports Direct did not have knowledge of that disability until Christmas 2021.
The tribunal held that earlier disability allegations, including comments about face coverings and the store-hours increase, were out of time and in any event were not proved. On the in-time discrimination issues, it found that the March 2022 performance review was based on objective store data, that there had been no proved promise of the general manager role in the proposed new Manchester store, and that the grievance process from 13 May to 4 July 2022 was a reasonable investigation of the matters raised. It therefore rejected the complaints under sections 15, 19, and 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The harassment complaint under section 26 also failed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments or conduct occurred as claimed, and it found that the remaining matters were not shown to be related to disability or to have created the required hostile or intimidating environment. The constructive unfair dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal did not find any conduct by Sports Direct that amounted to a fundamental breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and it held that the resignation was not made out as a constructive dismissal claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 complaint (discrimination arising from disability) dismissed. The tribunal found the face-mask allegation was out of time and not proved, and that the grievance process, performance review and comments about management style did not amount to unfavourable treatment or were justified as a proportionate response. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 19 complaint (indirect discrimination) dismissed. The tribunal found the family-tree/staffing model was a general management practice, but not shown to put disabled staff or the claimant at a particular disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20 and 21 complaint (failure to make reasonable adjustments) dismissed. The tribunal found the alleged PCPs were not coherently established in part, that the claimant was given some additional support and staffing, and that no unmet duty to make reasonable adjustments was made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Section 26 complaint dismissed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments or conduct occurred as claimed, and in any event was not satisfied they were related to disability or had the purpose or effect required by section 26. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal dismissed. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and held that the resignation following the grievance outcome did not succeed as a constructive dismissal claim. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Aziz v FDA
- Robertson v Bexley
- Szmidt v A C Produce Imports Ltd
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice and anor v Dunn
- Pnaiser v NHS England and anor
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd
- sections 20, 21 and Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice v Prospere
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Morrow v Safeway Stores plc
- Tullett Prebon plc and ors v BGC Brokers LP and ors
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.