Case 6003176/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Armitage v Aldi Stores Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003176/2025
- Decision date
- 6 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Armitage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a preliminary issue of whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant times from June 2024 to August 2024 for the purposes of complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the claimant was disabled by reason of Coeliac Disease, chronic fatigue, and problems with concentration and memory following a TIA.
The Tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant's medically prescribed gluten-free diet should be disregarded when assessing the effect of Coeliac Disease, and found that condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It also accepted that fatigue and concentration and memory problems following the TIA had a substantial adverse effect and were long-term due to the likelihood of recurrence.
The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence that dizziness, headaches, anxiety, depression, or health anxiety met the statutory definition of disability. No final merits determination or remedy award was made; the identified disability discrimination complaints could proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing determined only whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time; the disability discrimination complaints were permitted to proceed and the merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance
- likely to recur
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.