Case 3312962/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312962/2021
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing at Watford Tribunal Centre on 1 December 2022, Employment Judge Douse sat alone to determine a disability-status issue in the claimant's disability discrimination case against John Lewis plc. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by virtue of cervical disc bulges in his spine. It therefore did not accept cervical disc bulges as the basis for disability in this case.
The judgment also records that the claimant's disability discrimination claims would proceed on the basis of arthritis in both hips and his right knee, and that the respondent had conceded he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by virtue of that condition from 7 February 2020. No merits determination or monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing on disability status only. The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by virtue of cervical disc bulges in his spine. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.6 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.
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.