Case 2503396/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Lynn Fenwick v Asda Stores Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2503396/2018
Decision date: 22 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Arullendran Members
Venue: North Shields Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms R Bell, Mr S Hunter

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Lynn Fenwick

Respondent

Asda Stores Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant was employed as a warehouse operative and the respondent accepted that she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Following wrist surgery and continuing pain and limitation in her right arm, she was absent from work and then returned on light duties. The tribunal found that she was not forced to obtain a further sick note in March 2018, that the respondent had notified her of the ill-health capability process, and that the capability process was not improperly delayed.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's inability to carry out her full range of duties, which arose in consequence of her disability. It accepted that the respondent pursued legitimate aims relating to medical fitness for safety critical roles, regular performance of contractual duties, management of long-term capability absence, cost, management time and workforce planning. It found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims, noting the medical evidence, the claimant's inability to perform her core duties at the time, and the absence of suitable alternatives she wished to pursue.

For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the requirement to have a certain level of fitness placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments by allowing light duties, non-productive duties and sickness absence over a substantial period, and by allowing light duties beyond the initial six-week period after return. It found there were no further reasonable adjustments that could have avoided dismissal, particularly in light of the consultant and physiotherapist evidence and the claimant's position on alternative roles. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the respondent had reasonably investigated the medical position, considered alternatives, allowed representation and appeals, and acted within the range of reasonable responses.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found capability was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.