Case 2500282/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Catherine Millward v Marks and Spencer plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500282/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Julie
- Venue
- Remotely
- Panel members
- Julie Maughan, Emma Wiles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Catherine Millward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed all complaints. It found that the complaints of harassment related to disability, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well founded.
The Tribunal also found that the complaint of indirect sex discrimination was not well founded. The complaint described as unfair constructive dismissal was likewise dismissed as not well founded.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaints of harassment related to disability were not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of indirect sex discrimination was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint was described as unfair constructive dismissal and was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.