Case 1600996/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Williams v Newport City Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600996/2018
- Decision date
- 21 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms C Peel, Mrs L Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant suffered from a mental impairment in the form of anxiety at the relevant times, but it was not satisfied that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities beyond about the end of August 2017. It accepted that the claimant had been significantly unwell from March 2017 to around late August 2017, but the medical evidence and contact notes showed improvement thereafter. The tribunal also found that court attendance was not a day-to-day activity and that, from the latter part of 2017, recurrence of the acute impact of the condition was not shown to be likely.
Because the claimant was not disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times, the claims of discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination on the ground of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed. The tribunal nevertheless noted that the respondent had not realistically considered whether the claimant's role could be altered so that she would not have to do viability assessments or court-related work.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was capability in the form of the claimant's perceived inability to work because of her health, but held that a reasonable employer would have waited longer before dismissing. It found that the claimant could have continued in work if court-related work were removed from her duties, that court attendance had been rare in her own role and in comparable roles, that another employee was willing to cover viability assessments and related court work, and that the claimant was due to reach retirement age in July 2020. The tribunal therefore concluded that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
The victimisation claim was not pursued at the hearing and was dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy figure was decided in this judgment; a separate remedy hearing was listed for 17 November 2021 unless the parties reached agreement.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability in relation to the dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant times, so this claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of indirect discrimination on the ground of disability. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant times, so this claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant times, so this claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant confirmed at the hearing that she was not pursuing this claim; the tribunal dismissed it on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal for capability/ill health was found unfair. Remedy was left to a later hearing listed for 17 November 2021 unless agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging v Boyle
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
- Patterson v The Commissioner for the Police of the Metropolis
- Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary v Adams
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- BS v Dundee City Council
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
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.