Case 6003854/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Garyn Price Respondent Dijla Ltd (T/A Dominos Pizza) v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 6003854/2025
Decision date: 27 May 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Jenkins Appearances

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Garyn Price Respondent Dijla Ltd (T/A Dominos Pizza)

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied for a delivery driver role and the respondent carried out a risk assessment because of concerns about his ability to carry out deliveries. The tribunal found that there was no two-minute hot-rack rule as alleged, that questions and concerns raised during the assessment were part of assessing potential risks, and that an email incorrectly referring to the left arm was a genuine error.

For direct disability discrimination, the tribunal found that the refusal to appoint was connected to the claimant's disability but was not less favourable treatment than an appropriate comparator with the same or very similar abilities. For discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found the refusal to appoint was unfavourable treatment arising from disability, but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of health and safety and maintaining customer service.

For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that risk assessments and delivery requirements could amount to PCPs and that the respondent knew of the disadvantage, but the proposed adjustments were not reasonable steps for the respondent to have to take. The tribunal dismissed all complaints.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination complaint dismissed. The tribunal found the risk assessment matters either did not occur as alleged or were not unfavourable treatment, the incorrect description of the claimant's disability was a genuine error, and the refusal to appoint was not less favourable treatment than an appropriate comparator.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability complaint dismissed. The tribunal accepted that refusal to appoint was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, but found it was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint dismissed. The tribunal found some PCPs and substantial disadvantage, but concluded the proposed steps were not reasonably practicable or would not adequately address health and safety and customer service concerns.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.