Case 2411465/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Coppock v Footprint Freelance & Trades Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411465/2023
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms H D Price, Mr P Dobson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Coppock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Freelance Director of the first respondent (a construction recruitment company), brought claims of disability discrimination (section 15 unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, sections 20/21 failure to make reasonable adjustments, section 27 victimisation, and discrimination by way of dismissal) together with a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of withheld commission. The relied-upon disabilities were PMDD and symptoms of perimenopause; disability status was conceded by the respondent. The claimant lacked the qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim but contended that her constructive dismissal itself amounted to disability discrimination.
The tribunal, sitting as a panel of three (Employment Judge Eeley with Ms H D Price and Mr P Dobson), unanimously dismissed all five complaints as not well-founded. On the commission claim, the tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations that the claimant's conduct, taken separately or cumulatively, would have amounted to gross misconduct entitling the respondent to summary dismissal, and accordingly clause 5 of the commission agreement was properly invoked to withhold payment. The withholding was therefore authorised by the contract and did not constitute an unauthorised deduction from wages or a breach of contract.
In light of those findings the tribunal did not need to consider issues of time limits or limitation. The judgment was reserved following hearings in Manchester on 1-5 September and 8-9 December 2025, with deliberations in chambers 10-12 December 2025, approved on 30 January 2026 and sent to the parties on 10 March 2026.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. Disabilities relied upon were PMDD (pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder) and symptoms of perimenopause; disability status was conceded by the respondent. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010. Found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim. Found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination by way of (constructive) dismissal. The claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim but maintained that her constructive dismissal amounted to disability discrimination. Found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to withheld commission. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to rely on clause 5 of the commission agreement to withhold the commission on the basis that the claimant's conduct (taken separately or cumulatively) would have entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss her for gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 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.