Case 8000251/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member J Clewlow Tribunal Member A Matheson Mr Robin Maxwell v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000251/2023
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Shepherd Tribunal
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- J Clewlow, A Matheson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J Clewlow Tribunal Member A Matheson Mr Robin Maxwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who was accepted to be disabled by reason of Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Dyspraxia and Anxiety, brought claims of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation. The Tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination claim, finding that the claimant's union representative was not an appropriate comparator, that the respondent had not treated the claimant less favourably by agreeing arrangements with the representative, and that any difference in treatment was not because of disability.
The Tribunal upheld the reasonable adjustments claim. It found that the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage if required to attend wellness or long-term absence meetings without his Advocacy Support Worker, because her presence assisted him with stress, communication, and explaining the impact of his disabilities. Although the respondent had rearranged some meetings, it failed to take reasonable steps in relation to the meeting moved to 3 March 2023, a date it knew the Advocacy Support Worker could not attend.
The harassment allegations concerned events in 2021 and the victimisation allegation concerned events in 2020. The Tribunal found these claims were brought significantly outside the Equality Act time limits, did not form part of continuing conduct extending into 2023, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It therefore dismissed those claims for want of jurisdiction. On remedy for the upheld reasonable adjustments claim, the Tribunal found no financial loss but awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings, within the lower Vento band.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. The Tribunal found the named comparator was not in materially similar circumstances, that there was no less favourable treatment, and in any event no evidence that any difference in treatment was because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments upheld in respect of the meeting of 3 March 2023. The auxiliary aid was the attendance of the claimant's Advocacy Support Worker. | Upheld | Disability | £5,000 |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was dismissed because it was brought outside the relevant time limit and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal nevertheless recorded findings on merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was dismissed because it was brought outside the relevant time limit and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, so it had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal nevertheless recorded findings on merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- Land Registry v Grant
- London Borough of Haringey v O'Brien
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Miller v Ministry of Justice
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No. 2)
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.