Ms S Harris-Stevens v Fullbrook Ventures Limited (t/a Bernard Sims Associates) — 2021

The respondent was a health and safety consultancy whose work was heavily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that turnover fell from about £3 million to £3.5 million a year to about £2 million, that redundancies were planned from April 2020, and that the claimant’s role was one of those considered in that process. The claimant had been absent from work from 13 February 2020 with post-natal depression, was later furloughed from 1 June 2020 by agreement, and the respondent then moved to redundancy consultation in August 2020.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had been included in the initial redundancy planning because of her location and the likely redundancy of her role, not because of her disability or sex. It found the email exchanges between the claimant and Mrs Sims were supportive and sympathetic, and it noted that the respondent agreed to delay the claimant’s redundancy for about two months and to revisit the position when she was closer to returning. On that basis, it concluded that there were no facts from which to infer direct sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, or discrimination arising from disability.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1) ERA 1996, because the respondent’s requirement for employees to carry out work of the relevant kind in the places where the claimant worked had diminished. It accepted that the respondent could have pooled the claimant with Philip Holland, but held that the decision to treat her role as a stand-alone pool was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found that the respondent carried out a reasonable consultation process, warned the claimant that she was at risk, considered her proposals for a phased return and part-time work, and reasonably concluded that there were no suitable alternative roles.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, direct disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability. The indirect disability discrimination claim was withdrawn during the hearing and was recorded in the judgment as dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy assessment was required and no award was made.