Case 4104710/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104710/2020 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on and March 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Members – W Canning and L Hutchison Ms K Edwards v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104710/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alan Strain
- Panel members
- W Canning, L Hutchison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104710/2020 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on and March 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Members – W Canning and L Hutchison Ms K Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a sales assistant and had the protected characteristic of disability, which the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known about. She brought claims arising from incidents in February and March 2020, the handling of grievances, payroll issues during furlough, and her resignation on 3 August 2020.
The tribunal found that the conduct and comments relied on for the disability discrimination claims were work-related management action. It accepted that some comments could have been better worded, but found no prima facie case of direct disability discrimination and, in any event, accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation. It also found that the alleged treatment was not unfavourable treatment arising from disability, was not reasonably harassment related to disability, and that payroll errors were not because the claimant had lodged grievances.
On breach of contract and constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the alleged Equality Act breaches and comments in the grievance investigation did not breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that wage errors in April, May and July 2020 were relatively minor at the point of resignation, that the July pay query was still being looked at, and that they did not amount to a fundamental breach. The constructive dismissal and pay claims were dismissed, although the tribunal described the delay in resolving pay queries as poor practice and unreasonable.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described the claim as constructive unfair dismissal and found no fundamental breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that pay errors had been rectified by the hearing apart from £80 which the respondent conceded was due and would be paid, but the claim of failure to pay wages was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Malik v BCCI SA
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- two-stage approach to the burden of proof
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur (No.2)
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
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.