Case 6005666/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Henok v Marks and Spencer plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005666/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige Representation
- Venue
- London Central ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Henok
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant did not have a disability within the meaning of s.6 EqA 2010. Her claims under s.15 and s.20 EqA 2010 were therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's claims for direct race discrimination, harassment on the grounds of race, and victimisation were issued out of time. It found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not have a disability within the meaning of s.6 EqA 2010, so the claims under s.15 and s.20 EqA 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 was issued out of time, and the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim on the grounds of race under s.26 EqA 2010 was issued out of time, and the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim under s.27 EqA 2010 was issued out of time, and the Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 EqA 2010
- s.15 EqA 2010
- s.20 EqA 2010
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.26 EqA 2010
- s.27 EqA 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.