Case 3200648/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Rodrigues De Carvalho v Aspers (Stratford City) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200648/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Panel members
- Ms S Barlow, Ms B K Saund
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Rodrigues De Carvalho
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss M Rodrigues De Carvalho was, at all material times, disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anxiety and depression. It upheld her claim that Aspers (Stratford City) Limited failed to make reasonable adjustments to the frequency and pattern of shifts she was required to work. It also upheld the claim of harassment related to disability arising from two colleagues suggesting that she was exaggerating the effects of her mental health condition, and the claim that she was victimised by being investigated and suspended.
The tribunal rejected the harassment claim related to disability concerning a colleague named Edita. It also rejected the direct discrimination claims based on race and disability arising from comments alleged to have been made by Ernesto Ferrero. A further disability discrimination claim concerning the handling of the Claimant's grievance was also dismissed. The decision records liability findings only and does not set out any monetary remedy or award.
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 | Claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to the frequency and pattern of shifts required to be worked; the tribunal found the Claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability based on actions of two colleagues who suggested the Claimant was exaggerating the effects of her mental health condition. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim that the Respondent victimised the Claimant by investigating and suspending her. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability in relation to a colleague identified as Edita. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race based on comments alleged to have been made by Ernesto Ferrero. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability based on comments alleged to have been made by Ernesto Ferrero. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20, 21 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- ss.26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 and s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 and s.39 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.
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.