Case 1400540/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Lingham v NHS Devon Integrated Care Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400540/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Lingham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Lingham worked for NHS Devon Integrated Care Board from 22 June 2020 until her resignation on 9 January 2022. She brought claims of discrimination arising from disability, sex-related harassment and victimisation. The hearing was an open preliminary hearing focused on whether she was disabled under s.6 EqA 2010 and whether the harassment and victimisation claims were in time.
On the disability issue, the tribunal accepted that from mid-August 2021 the claimant was struggling with a new role, Mr Pearson’s management and personal issues, and that she first expressly reported anxiety on 20 October 2021. It also accepted that she improved after moving to the Winter Room on 1 November 2021, and that occupational health on 22 November 2021 recorded no underlying medical condition and no current instability. Applying s.6 and Schedule 1 EqA 2010, the tribunal found that she had not shown a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect at the material time, and that the anxiety was work-related stress rather than a qualifying disability. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
On the sex harassment complaint, the only relied-on incident was a comment by Mr Pearson around 18 August 2021. The tribunal held that the claim was presented outside the s.123 EqA time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time because the claimant was unrepresented, had tried to resolve matters internally, contacted EHRC and then ACAS on advice, and the respondent was not prejudiced. The harassment claim was therefore allowed to proceed, but no finding was made on the merits at this hearing. The victimisation claim was also treated as in time after the respondent conceded that the 27 October 2021 conversation with Marianna Brojevic-Gray was a protected act; that claim likewise remained to be determined on its merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled at the material times by reason of anxiety and therefore the disability discrimination claim could not proceed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the time limit, but extended time on a just and equitable basis so the harassment claim could proceed to final hearing. No merits finding was made at this hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent conceded that the victimisation claim was in time and that the 27 October 2021 conversation with Marianna Brojevic-Gray was a protected act. No merits finding was made at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.15 EqA 2010
- s.6 EqA 2010
- Schedule 1 EqA 2010
- s.26 EqA 2010
- s.27 EqA 2010
- s.123 EqA 2010
- just and equitable extension
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- All Answers Ltd v W
- British Coal v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Service
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS FT
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.