Case 2600930/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Rodriguez v CDS (Superstore International) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600930/2020
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Rodriguez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Rodriguez brought disability discrimination complaints against CDS (Superstores International) Limited and may also have pursued an unfair dismissal claim. At earlier preliminary hearings, Employment Judge Faulkner and then Employment Judge Butler identified apparent claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability, and gave repeated directions for further particulars, medical records and an impact statement so the tribunal could determine whether the claimant was disabled within the Equality Act 2010 and understand the basis of the claims. The claimant said the dismissal followed a GP report recommending a pacemaker and later explained that he relied on heart failure, kidney failure and type 2 diabetes.
Despite those opportunities and unless orders, the claimant did not provide the required detail. The tribunal found that his further material still did not say when the alleged refusal to allow him back to work happened, who witnessed it, what substantial disadvantage it caused, what reasonable steps should have been taken, or why the dismissal was unfair. The claimant had sent some correspondence and an impact statement describing medication, but the judge found it did not address the impact on normal day-to-day activities or the duration of the impairments in the way ordered.
The claimant’s reasons for non-compliance, including covid-19 difficulties, lack of legal and medical appointments, computer problems and email issues, were not accepted as adequate. The tribunal noted that he had his medical records, could correspond by post as well as email, and the information sought was within his own knowledge. The claim had already been dismissed on 16 February 2021, and on this judgment the tribunal refused relief from sanction under rule 38(2), applying the interests of justice test and the factors in Thind v Salvesen Logistics and Enamejewa v British Gas Trading Ltd and anor. No substantive merits determination or remedy was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Earlier preliminary hearings identified an apparent failure to make reasonable adjustments allegation related to disability. The claim was dismissed for non-compliance with unless orders; there was no merits determination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The earlier case management summary recorded a claim of harassment related to disability. The claim was dismissed for non-compliance with unless orders; there was no merits determination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to a possible unfair dismissal claim and required particulars of the reason for dismissal and why it was unfair, but says the precise basis was not verified before dismissal. The claim was dismissed for non-compliance with unless orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
- Thind v Salvesen Logistics EAT 0487/09
- Enamejewa v British Gas Trading Ltd and anor EAT 0347/14
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.