Case 3311726/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Smith (In person) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311726/2021
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mrs J Hancock, Mr S Bury
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms S Smith (In person) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for BerryWorld Limited and had anorexia, which the tribunal considered in the disability-related complaints. The tribunal upheld limited complaints of direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make a reasonable adjustment concerning a suitable chair for home working. Other complaints under those heads, and the victimisation complaints, were dismissed.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had not shown sufficient evidence of a genuine redundancy situation. It found that the claimant had been told in March 2021 that she had been scored lowest, when that scoring had not taken place, and that the respondent had chosen her to leave before the later consultation process.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was unfair because it was not due to a genuine redundancy situation but due to the decision not to continue supporting the claimant. The parties agreed compensation in a separate appendix or schedule, but the supplied prompt text does not include the amount or breakdown.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The compensation sum was agreed in a separate appendix/schedule not included in the provided text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Some complaints of direct disability discrimination succeeded, including the predetermined grievance decision and the discriminatory email comment; remaining direct discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Some complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability succeeded, including pressure at meetings to leave employment and dismissal; remaining complaints under this head were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint about not providing a suitable chair for working from home succeeded; remaining reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the remaining victimisation complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- S.111A
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.