Ms Pavandeep Hundal v South Gloucestershire Council — 2023

Ms Hundal was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2015. By May 2019 South Gloucestershire Council knew she had health problems, and the tribunal found that Mrs Desmond and Mr Scrase understood she had endometriosis before she started work. The claimant began an agency placement in July 2019 at Yate, with an expectation that a permanent post might later be agreed, but no permanent terms were fixed.

After she started, the claimant had several short absences linked to endometriosis and was allowed to work from home on some occasions. Supervision notes recorded longstanding health needs, discussion of endometriosis, and an option to spread a four-day week over five days. By 12 September 2019 the tribunal found the respondent had constructive knowledge that the condition was a disability, and it did not find knowledge of a separate congenital spinal condition.

On 17 October 2019 Mrs Desmond recorded that sporadic sickness was a significant issue and that, once a permanent worker started, notice would be given. The tribunal found that the claimant was selected for termination over another locum because of her sickness absence record, and that the same termination decision was therefore less favourable treatment because of disability under s.13 Equality Act 2010. It also held that terminating the agency placement was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under s.15.

The sex discrimination claims failed. The tribunal found no evidence that terminating the contract was because of sex, and it rejected the claim about not progressing a permanent role because there was no agreed permanent offer or agreed route from agency to permanent employment. It also rejected the claim that the respondent had prevented a return to work after sickness absence, noting that Mr Careswell had allowed homeworking.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the alleged PCPs were not PCPs: ordinary sickness absence, office attendance and allocation of work on return were treated as normal working arrangements rather than disabled-person PCPs. The tribunal also found no substantial disadvantage arising from the claimed congenital spinal condition. No remedy figure is recorded in this judgment; further remedy directions were made and a remedy hearing was listed separately.