Case 6002696/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A. Norman v John Lewis plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002696/2025
- Decision date
- 22 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A. Norman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written judgment records that A. Norman brought claims against John Lewis plc which were heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal by CVP on 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 May 2026 before Employment Judge G. King. The claims identified in the judgment were unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, stating that it was not well founded. It also dismissed the failure to make reasonable adjustments claims and the discrimination arising from disability claims, each recorded as not well founded. No monetary remedy was awarded or otherwise recorded in the judgment.
The written record states that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written summary reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit. The written judgment therefore records the outcomes but does not set out detailed factual findings or legal tests applied to the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.