Sainsbury Manager Awarded £60K in Constructive Unfair Dismissal Case After Facing Misogynistic Abuse

Published : September 26, 2025

In Miss Deborah Oziel v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, a customer trading manager has won nearly £60,000 after succeeding with her constructive unfair dismissal case. The employment tribunal found that her employer had fundamentally breached the implied duty of trust and confidence, justifying her resignation and subsequent claim.

In our latest article, we examine exactly what happened and the reasoning behind the tribunal’s decision. We then outline what qualifies as constructive dismissal and discuss the potential compensation available to those who successfully claim.

If you’ve felt forced to resign and want specialist legal advice, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. Our team of employment experts is here to help. Following a brief consultation, we can address your queries, discuss your options, and assess your eligibility for constructive dismissal compensation.

It doesn’t take long to learn how we can assist, simply:

Phone us on 020 3397 3603
Request a callback via our online form

The Facts in Miss Deborah Oziel v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Background to the Constructive Unfair Dismissal Case

Miss Deborah Oziel (“the Claimant”) began working as a customer trading manager for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (“the Respondent”) on 15 June 2016. She worked at its East Finchley store in a management position between a supervisor and a store manager.

Incidents Involving Mr Henderson

The Claimant’s case primarily concerned the conduct of Mr Matthew Henderson, a more junior colleague, and the Respondent’s subsequent failures to act appropriately.

The first incident highlighted occurred on 23 September 2021, when she spoke with Mr Henderson about tasks he hadn’t performed. Following the discussion, Mr Henderson called her a “f*cking bitch” during an angry outburst in front of customers.

Other Workplace Incidents

Further incidents arose, and while they were unrelated to Mr Henderson, they likely contributed to the environment that led to the Claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal case.

The first was in December 2021, when a male colleague raised a ‘fair treatment complaint’ against her. Initially, the Respondent held that the Claimant had harassed him. However, after she raised concerns about the decision, she was informally told that the allegations wouldn’t be pursued.

Then, on 25 January 2023, while on duty, the Claimant intervened after identifying two female shoplifters. She was met with physical violence and abusive language. The incident was understandably very distressing, leading her to call a suicide support line, yet she received no workplace support.

Renewed Issues with Mr Henderson

By 2 February 2023, issues with Mr Henderson resurfaced. After repeatedly telling a colleague to “f*ck off,” he told another that he planned to purchase an “imitation gun” and bring it to work to intimidate the Claimant.

Then, on 7 February, CCTV footage showed Mr Henderson confronting the Claimant, shouting and pointing at her, only leaving when she activated her bodycam. Mr Nick Galvin, the store’s former manager, phoned the Claimant to say he would handle the matter. However, when she disclosed that she felt threatened, Mr Galvin laughed, saying she had taken things “too seriously” and become overly emotional.

This led the Claimant to raise a grievance about both the incident and Mr Galvin’s response. Mr Galvin also suspended Mr Henderson for “inappropriate behaviour; namely swearing, raising voice and acting in an aggressive manner towards other colleagues.”

Contrasting Approach to Complaints

After meeting only with Mr Henderson, the Respondent decided to take no further action. The outcome letter described the matter as a “breakdown in communication” and questioned whether the actions taken had been appropriate.

By contrast, when Mr Henderson lodged his own complaints against the Claimant on 8 February, an outcome letter dated 28 February said management could have treated him better. It stated, “I feel you could have been better supported which may have prevented some of the incidents taking place.”

During proceedings, the tribunal highlighted the difference in treatment. While Mr Henderson’s complaints were “treated as a grievance,” the Claimant’s were not.

Constructive Unfair Dismissal Case Brought

In the following month, further issues arose, including the deletion of the Claimant’s bodycam footage. She lodged another complaint on 25 March but received no response before resigning on 29 March. Two days later, she received acknowledgement of her resignation, effective 1 April.

After resigning, the Claimant brought employment tribunal proceedings. Among her claims, she alleged constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment on the grounds of sex, and detriment related to a protected disclosure.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Direct Sex Discrimination Claim

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by assessing the claim of direct sex discrimination. This concerned Mr Henderson’s use of the word “bitch,” which the tribunal stated was a term primarily used against women.

The tribunal found that Mr Henderson’s language towards the Claimant was offensive, constituted “less favourable treatment,” and was directly related to her sex. Since the Respondent failed to “sufficiently evidence” the reasonable steps it’d taken to prevent such treatment, the direct sex discrimination claim was therefore upheld.

Detriment Related to a Protected Disclosure

Moving on, the tribunal looked at the Claimant’s allegation concerning a detriment suffered related to a protected disclosure. In this instance, the disclosure referred to the Claimant informing HR about Mr Henderson’s intent to purchase and intimidate with an “imitation gun.” She relied on the qualifying disclosure, reasonably believing that her disclosure was in the public interest and showed that a criminal offence had been committed, was being committed, or was likely to be committed.

The tribunal held that her case amounted to a qualifying disclosure, meaning that it then looked to determine whether she suffered a detriment as a result. It stated that detriment was suffered, since her complaints regarding Mr Henderson weren’t adequately addressed, no subsequent action was taken against him, and blame surrounding the incident was placed on her.

Constructive Unfair Dismissal Case

Finally, dealing with the Claimant’s constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal outlined several failures on the Respondent’s part. From mishandling the complaints regarding Mr Henderson to inadequately supporting the Claimant in unrelated matters, such as the shoplifting incident, the Respondent was found to have fundamentally breached the duty of trust and confidence. As a result, her constructive dismissal claim was also successful.

While all other claims were dismissed, a constructive dismissal payout, including compensation for direct sex discrimination and detriment related to a protected disclosure, was awarded by the tribunal. The total awarded was £59,333.14, comprising a basic and compensatory award, injury to feelings, aggravated damages and interest.

What Qualifies as Constructive Dismissal?

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee feels forced to resign because their employer has fundamentally breached the terms of their employment contract. As it was in the constructive unfair dismissal case above, the most common breach is the implied duty of trust and confidence. This duty requires employers to treat staff fairly and refrain from behaviour that makes continued employment untenable.

Some examples of breaches that may justify resignation include:

Failing to address instances of bullying or harassment
Unfairly disciplining or demoting an employee
Making unreasonable changes to an employee’s duties, pay or working conditions

To bring a claim, employees need to prove that:

Their employer has committed a fundamental breach of contract
They resigned as a result of said breach
They didn’t delay resignation, potentially affirming their contract and accepting their employer’s conduct

Before an employee chooses to resign, though, it’s usually advised to seek expert legal advice. When bringing a claim, individuals must legally be classified as employees and have two years of continuous service. They must also adhere to strict time limits and be able to prove the above. Because one’s legal position is weakened following resignation, it’s essential to understand the risks and options available before taking action.

What is the Average Payout for Constructive Dismissal in the UK?

Should an employee successfully bring a claim, their constructive dismissal compensation would be based on two elements.

The first is a basic award, calculated based on an employee’s age, service length, and weekly pay.
The second is a compensatory award, reflecting the financial losses that have arisen following an employee’s resignation due to their employer’s conduct. Said losses can include both current and future financial losses, as well as the loss of statutory rights and pension benefits.

However, if an individual’s case involves other claims, such as discrimination, whistleblowing or aggravated damages, further compensation could be awarded. Among other things, this could include injury to feelings.