Claimant v Marks and Spencer PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was procedurally or substantively unfair, and the respondent failed to demonstrate it acted reasonably in treating the reason as sufficient for dismissal.
The tribunal found the claimant was discriminated against on grounds of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability). The dismissal was because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability and the respondent could not show it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of her age. The claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 for age discrimination was not established on the facts.
Facts
Mrs Sharon Evans was employed by Marks and Spencer PLC and was dismissed. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and age discrimination under section 13. The claimant represented herself at a three-day hearing while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claim under section 15 (discrimination arising from disability), finding that the dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory. The age discrimination claim was dismissed. The claimant was awarded total compensation of £15,840.66, including injury to feelings of £11,500 in the lower Vento band, plus a preparation time order of £220.
Practical note
Employers must ensure dismissals of disabled employees are not only procedurally fair but also carefully consider whether the dismissal arises from disability-related matters and whether it can be justified as proportionate.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000718/2024
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No