Case 3305997/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Deborah Oziel v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305997/2023
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Date
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Miller, Mrs Hancock
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Deborah Oziel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSitting at Watford Employment Tribunal on 3 to 7 June 2024, Employment Judge Bartlett with Mr Miller and Mrs Hancock heard the claimant's complaints against Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd. The tribunal upheld the claims of constructive unfair dismissal under s98 Employment Rights Act 1996, detriment for making protected disclosures under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, and direct discrimination because of sex under s13 Equality Act 2010. The harassment claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the same conduct was found to be direct discrimination, which prevents the same conduct also amounting to harassment.
For the unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,375 and compensation of £29,250, calculated as 62 weeks of net pay at £459.90 (£28,513.80) uplifted for failures to comply with the ACAS code and capped at the statutory 52-week limit. The entire compensation amount was the prescribed element, and the tribunal recorded that recoupment applies notwithstanding the cap.
In respect of the discrimination, the tribunal awarded £21,000 for injury to feelings and £2,000 for aggravated damages. Interest at 8% from the agreed midpoint of 1 June 2022 came to £3,718.14. The total award was recorded by the tribunal as £59,333.14.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under s98 Employment Rights Act 1996; basic award £3,375 plus compensation of £29,250 (52-week statutory cap, after ACAS uplift). | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment for a reason connected to sex under s26 Equality Act 2010 dismissed because the same conduct was found to be direct discrimination, which prevents the conduct also amounting to harassment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination because of sex under s13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded; injury to feelings £21,000 and aggravated damages £2,000. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £59,333
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,375
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £29,250
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- ACAS code uplift
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.