Case 1301317/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301317/2021
- Decision date
- 25 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr P Davis, Mrs I Fox
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Masawad Shaeen worked for Practice Plus Group Health and Rehabilitation Service Ltd and its predecessors as a healthcare assistant from 2002. The tribunal accepted that she had OCD, anxiety and an eating disorder, all of which were disabilities for Equality Act purposes. The dispute arose from the period after her COVID shielding in 2020, her request for annual leave to start new medication, her concerns about PPE and risk assessment, her sickness absence from January 2021, and the eventual capability dismissal on 26 November 2021.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected most of the pleaded PCPs. It found that generic risk assessments had been carried out in June and August 2020, that sufficient PPE was available, that the delay in communicating approval of annual leave was unacceptable but was not itself a PCP, that there was regular welfare contact during sickness absence, that the rota change was not applied to her, and that a referral to Occupational Health in February 2021 was consistent with the long-term absence policy. The tribunal did, however, find that no BAME risk assessment was completed after the respondent invited one in December 2020 and the claimant said she wanted one; that omission was treated as a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments. The discrimination complaint succeeded only to that limited extent.
Victimisation and unfair dismissal both failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act when she presented her ET1 on 25 April 2021, but found that her dismissal was because of long-term sickness absence and ill-health capability, not because she had brought proceedings. Applying s.98(2)(a) and s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and therefore fair. The tribunal said the case would return for remedy on the limited reasonable-adjustments finding and indicated that any award would be confined to injury to feelings and likely fall within the lower Vento band, close to its upper end, but it did not quantify any award in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Partly upheld: most alleged PCPs failed, but the tribunal found the respondent failed to complete a BAME risk assessment after inviting one in December 2020. That omission was treated as a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments. The other complaints, including PPE, annual leave delay, lack of contact, rota change and Occupational Health timing, were rejected or treated as out of time. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the ET1 of 25 April 2021 was a protected act, but held that the dismissal on 26 November 2021 was because of long-term sickness absence and capability, not because proceedings had been brought. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal held that the capability dismissal on 26 November 2021 was fair within s.98(4) ERA 1996 and within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.20 and s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Ishola v Transport for London
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.