Case 1406372/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Jiggens - Paralegal For the v Mr C McDevitt - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406372/2019
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mr K Sleeth, Mr Ghotbi-Ravandi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Jiggens - Paralegal For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal accepted that Ms Yardley was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression at all material times and found that Somerset County Council had constructive knowledge of that disability from the first occupational health report. It also found, however, that the contemporaneous medical records pointed primarily to home circumstances as the cause of her symptoms, and that her later evidence that work was the main trigger was overstated.
The constructive dismissal claim failed. The tribunal held that Mrs King’s contact with the claimant, the wellbeing meetings, and the handling of the grievance and redeployment discussions were not repudiatory conduct. It found that the parties had been working towards an alternative role away from Mrs King, that the grievance process was adapted by agreement to focus on that solution, and that the matters relied on as the final straws did not amount either separately or cumulatively to a breach of trust and confidence.
The disability discrimination claims were also dismissed. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the pleaded PCPs were not made out, or did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that there was no basis for the adjustments said to be required. On the section 15 claim, the only treated-as-unfavourable point identified was the reduction in sick pay after contractual entitlement was exhausted, but the tribunal held that this was justified by legitimate aims and was proportionate.
The harassment allegations were rejected because the tribunal did not accept that the relevant contacts, texts, GP letter request, or meetings were unwanted conduct with the required purpose or effect. The victimisation claim also failed: the grievance of 21 March 2019 was accepted as a protected act, but the tribunal found that the grievance handling and redeployment discussions were driven by the practical aim of finding a workable return-to-work solution, not by the claimant’s protected act or by her use of a disability specialist representative. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim rejected; the tribunal found no repudiatory breach or cumulative course of conduct amounting to a breach of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. The tribunal held that the alleged PCPs were not made out, or did not cause a substantial disadvantage, and no further adjustment was required. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim dismissed. The only adverse pay consequence identified was exhaustion of contractual sick pay, which the tribunal held was justified and proportionate. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim dismissed. The tribunal rejected the alleged unwanted conduct, including calls, texts, the GP letter and meeting communications, as having the prohibited effect. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim dismissed. The tribunal accepted the grievance was a protected act, but found no detriment because of that act and no retaliatory motive in the grievance handling. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.15 EqA 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- s.20 EqA 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- O'Hanlon v Commissioners for HMRC
- s.26 EqA 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood
- s.27 EqA 2010
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.