Case 2600689/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rutendo Mashiri v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600689/2023
- Decision date
- 24 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Members
- Panel members
- Ms N Pratt, Mr C Bhogaita
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rutendo Mashiri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract and victimisation. The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled at the material times and had knowledge of disability, but the tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments complaints.
The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996 and that the respondent carried out meaningful consultation. It found no evidence of a suitable alternative role the claimant could have performed if it did not allow entirely home-based working, and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. The breach of contract complaint was also dismissed, with holiday pay recorded as agreed and paid.
The grievance appeal victimisation complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found no causal link with the protected act. The respondent conceded victimisation in relation to failing to provide outplacement support during the consultation period, and the tribunal adjourned remedy for that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 disability discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was dismissed; the judgment records that holiday pay was agreed and paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint that the respondent failed to investigate or progress the claimant's grievance appeal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 139 ERA 1996
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.