Mrs N Rogers v Brook Street Agency Limited — 2019

Mrs Rogers was an agency worker for Brook Street and had epilepsy. After returning to work in February 2017, she told the respondent that her epilepsy was not stable and that she had had a seizure at work. The tribunal found that the respondent knew she was disabled, but that communication between the parties was often unclear and that the respondent did not proactively make enquiries. It also found that a previous arrangement put in place by the SSCL line manager included a fan, a first aider in the room, a different chair and education of colleagues about the claimant’s seizures.

The claimant later received a letter dated 11 May 2017 stating that her employment would be terminated with effect from 19 May 2017, followed shortly by a P45. The tribunal held that when she received and read that letter, she was dismissed. It accepted that the letter and P45 were generated automatically after an attempt to stop the respondent’s write-off process failed, but held that the wording of the letter was unambiguous. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument that this was justified as some other substantial reason and also held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because a reasonable employer with the respondent’s resources would have ensured the write-off stop request worked and would have taken more proactive steps to monitor and find further assignments.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal dismissed the section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint because the dismissal was caused by the administrative mistake in the automatic process, not by something arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability. It upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint in relation to the fan. The tribunal found there was a broad practice at SSCL of agency workers dealing directly with SSCL management about health matters and adjustments, that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that by around 16 February 2017 the respondent knew the fan was important to her. It found it would have been reasonable to buy the fan without waiting for the GP report. The tribunal did not find the respondent had the necessary knowledge for the complaints about educating colleagues or lone working, and said that risk assessment and occupational health points could not themselves found a reasonable adjustments claim. The liability hearing concluded with the case being listed for a remedy hearing.