Case 3310966/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ABC v John Lewis plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3310966/2020
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms S Johnstone, Mr P English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ABC
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who has autism, worked at the respondent's High Wycombe branch. The respondent conceded disability. The tribunal found that the respondent had implemented a Tailored Adjustments Plan in 2017, but that it had not been reviewed after July 2017 and that the branch did not maintain the intended number of autism-awareness-trained staff after some trained staff left. The tribunal nevertheless dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaints because it did not find that the pleaded PCPs placed the claimant at the pleaded substantial disadvantages, save that the Team Leader Training Programme issue was addressed under s.15.
The tribunal upheld the s.15 complaint about removing the claimant from the Team Leader Training Programme. It found this was unfavourable treatment because of behaviour arising in consequence of the claimant's autism. Although the respondent had legitimate aims including operational effectiveness and efficiency, it had not shown the removal was proportionate, including because the decision was presented as a fait accompli, alternatives and adjustments had not been explored with the claimant, and no clear review point or specialist advice had been sought.
The other s.15 allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent's actions on 22 November 2019, the discussion of behaviour on 24 January 2020, the 26 January 2020 email to managers, the interactions on 16 February 2020, the suspension, disciplinary investigation and dismissal were either not established as alleged or were justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely the claimant striking a manager on 16 February 2020. It found that the dismissing officer had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, had considered the claimant's autism, medical evidence and adjustments, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The appeal process was also found to be fair and reasonable.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | The upheld Equality Act claim was discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA, limited to removing the claimant from the Team Leader Training Programme, notified on 24 January 2020. The tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining Equality Act allegations under s.15 and s.21 EqA, including the reasonable adjustments complaints and the other alleged unfavourable treatment, were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was not unfair. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Lyfar v Brighton and Hove University Hospitals Trust
- Aziz v FDA
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest
- City of York Council v Grosset
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice v Prospere
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Governing Body of Hastingsbury School v Clarke
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.