Ms M Shoulder v Dignity Pet Crematorium Limited — 2023

Ms Shoulder brought claims of direct sex discrimination, harassment, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and victimisation arising from her employment as a driver, which ran from 16 May 2019. Her disability status was not in dispute: the tribunal recorded previous cancer and dyslexia, and the case concerned whether the respondent's actions were motivated by sex or disability and whether any reasonable adjustments or victimisation occurred.

At the start of oral closing submissions the claimant withdrew four complaints: the sex discrimination allegation about being asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, the disability furlough allegation, the reasonable-adjustments allegation about written correspondence, and the victimisation allegation about an independent appeal panel. The tribunal therefore determined the remaining allegations on the merits and later noted that, because the complaints failed, it did not need to decide the time-limit issues.

The tribunal rejected the remaining sex discrimination and harassment allegations. It found the claimant had not proved the October 2019 pink-boxers incident, the later garage incident said to involve trousers and a groin injury, the allegation that Mr Spurgeon showed paedophile-vigilante videos, or the allegation of repeated sexual innuendo. On the sex discrimination claims, it accepted that the claimant was the only female driver furloughed in March 2020 and that she lost pay, but it found the decision was linked to perceived vulnerability arising from a chest-infection absence rather than sex. It also found the claimant did not prove that she was suspended on 10 August 2020, and it accepted the respondent's reason for dismissal on 7 September 2020 as vehicle damage and a misleading account of the incident. The complaint that she was denied an appeal with independent people also failed because the tribunal found ZS, not KS, heard the appeal.

The disability-based claims also failed. The direct disability discrimination complaint about dismissal because of cancer and/or dyslexia was rejected for the same reason the tribunal accepted the dismissal explanation on the sex discrimination side. The section 15 claim based on July 2020 stress and anxiety arising from a cancer scare failed because the tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for misconduct, not because of that absence. The reasonable-adjustments complaints about immediate written statements and short disciplinary timescales also failed: the tribunal found the claimant had approved the account produced after the 6 August 2020 incident, requests for more time were agreed, and no substantial disadvantage or relevant knowledge was proved. The only reasonable-adjustments complaint withdrawn was the one about written correspondence.

The victimisation claims failed as well. The tribunal accepted that the appeal submissions contained a protected act, but found no failure to deal with the appeal with insufficient rigour and no victimising reason for refusing it. It held that ZS engaged with the claimant's points and that the appeal outcome addressed the allegations she had raised. No monetary award was made because all remaining complaints were dismissed or withdrawn.