Case 2409517/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Woodley v B&M Retail Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409517/2022
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr Wells, Ms Price
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Woodley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Woodley brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal complaints against B & M Retail Limited. The tribunal held that the direct discrimination complaint succeeded in part because the respondent subjected him to less favourable treatment because of disability on 8 September 2021, when Mr James referred to him as a "fucking schizo", and in relation to rota decisions affecting Saturdays in late September and early October 2021. Those successful complaints were treated as detriments under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that the same successful allegations could not additionally succeed as harassment complaints. The remaining allegations in the direct discrimination and or harassment complaints at paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 failed for the reasons given orally.
The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to reasonably adjust by not allowing the claimant to work across four days, excluding Saturdays, in September to October 2021. The separate reasonable adjustments complaint relating to dismissal failed.
The discrimination arising out of disability claim failed. The claimant accepted that the decision to proceed to disciplinary had not arisen out of his disability, and the tribunal found that the dismissal complaint under that head failed because dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate staffing aim. The unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal recorded that a separate remedy hearing would be listed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint succeeded in part. The tribunal found less favourable treatment because of disability at 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 on the List of Issues, including the 8 September 2021 remark by Mr James, the 5 consecutive day shift from 22 September 2021, the Saturday rotas for 25 September, 2 October and 9 October 2021, and the 9 October 2021 shift despite the claimant's counselling/therapy and birthday plans. Other parts of the direct discrimination complaint at 3.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 failed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the complaints which succeeded as detriments under section 13 could not also succeed as harassment complaints. The remaining harassment allegations at 3.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 failed for the reasons given orally. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to reasonably adjust by not allowing the claimant to work across 4 days, excluding Saturdays, in September to October 2021. The separate part of the reasonable adjustments complaint relating to dismissal failed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for discrimination arising out of disability failed. The claimant conceded that the decision to proceed to disciplinary had not arisen out of his disability. The dismissal complaint under this head also failed because the respondent established dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate staffing aim. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 212 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- reasonable adjustments duty
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.