Claimant v Little Bundles of Joy Ltd — 2019

The tribunal found that Ms Bloomer was disabled for Equality Act purposes, with fibromyalgia, atypical polymorphic light eruption and benign hypermobility syndrome. It accepted that she had told Mrs Hussain about her diagnoses at the February 2018 recruitment meeting, but found that only limited information had been given at that stage and that she had not raised a need for reasonable adjustments then. The tribunal also found that the nursery was poorly managed and that much of the day-to-day information reaching the directors was filtered through the nursery manager, Ms Allen.

On the direct disability discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the claimant was demoted from Room Leader in June 2018 and that her hours reduced in time, but it concluded that the reason was not disability itself. It held that the relevant decision was based on her abilities, absence record and temperament in the context of a new business, and not because she was disabled. The tribunal rejected Vicky Johns as an appropriate comparator. It also found that the later reduction in hours and the cessation of shifts after 5 February 2019 were explained by perceived unreliability caused by sickness-related cancellations, and that a non-disabled comparator with the same attendance issues would have been treated the same way.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found that the respondent had taken steps sufficient to avoid the relevant disadvantages. Although staff lockers were on the third floor, it found that Ms Bloomer could store belongings in the manager’s office; although the uniform issue concerned short sleeves, she was allowed to wear long sleeves underneath the polo shirt; and although nursery workers used children-sized chairs, adult chairs were available from the manager’s office and could be brought in when needed. The tribunal therefore held that the respondent had either already made, or was not required to make, further adjustments.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the 4 June 2018 email and the January 2019 email mentioning Unison were protected acts, but found no causal link between those acts and the ending of shifts or any other alleged detriment. It concluded that the respondent’s reason for stopping shifts was perceived unreliability, not the protected acts. The unlawful deductions claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had agreed to work as bank staff from June 2018 and that there was no agreement to a minimum of 18 hours per week, so there was no wage shortfall as alleged. The tribunal noted that it would have treated the discrimination allegations as part of a continuing act and would have extended time if necessary, but that did not alter the dismissal of all claims.