Case 1300298/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Connell v A S Kitching (Oakengates) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300298/2019
- Decision date
- 2 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Petrulis, Mrs Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Connell worked for A.S Kitching (Oakengates) Ltd as a Pharmacy Technician from 18 November 2013. The tribunal found that she was a disabled person for Equality Act 2010 purposes, accepting that she had Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hypermobility), fibromyalgia and related conditions, with substantial and long-term effects on sitting, standing and concentration. It also found that the respondent knew about at least some of her conditions and the adjustments and coping measures she used at work.
The disability discrimination complaint concerned the meeting on 3 August 2018 with Diane Kitching and Linzi Pooler. The tribunal found the meeting was intended as a welfare and mediation meeting after repeated disputes involving Chloe Pooler, and it did not accept that Linzi Pooler was a bully. It held that the comments made at the meeting, including concern about the claimant's health and encouragement to speak to colleagues if she was not feeling well, were not less favourable treatment because of disability, but were aimed at understanding the workplace dispute and maintaining working relationships. It therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal rejected the reliance placed on the respondent's handling of the bullying complaints, the 3 August meeting, the 22 August 2018 telephone call, and the alleged delay in dealing with the grievance dated 18 August 2018. It found the respondent had addressed the complaints, that the 22 August call resulted from a mistaken belief about the claimant's sick note, and that the grievance was responded to on 3 September 2018 after Mr Kevin Kitching returned from annual leave, with an offer of a formal meeting. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned because she felt unable to return to work, it held that there had been no repudiatory breach of contract or breach of trust and confidence, so the claims failed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination alleged in relation to the 3 August 2018 meeting and the comments made there. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim based on the handling of bullying complaints, the 3 August 2018 meeting, the 22 August 2018 telephone call, and the grievance process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal said that if the claimant had been dismissed she would necessarily have been wrongfully dismissed because she resigned without notice; it found no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Morrow v Safeway Stores
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
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.