Case 1601176/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rachel Gladstone v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601176/2023
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr A Fryer, Ms R Hartwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rachel Gladstone
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments arising mainly from disciplinary proceedings and her resignation. The tribunal found that four of the five asserted protected disclosures were protected disclosures, concerning disputed tax debts, dissolved companies, call-note records and remission processes. It found the telephone software disclosure was not a protected disclosure.
On whistleblowing detriment, the tribunal found that some aspects of the disciplinary communications and lack of clarification were confusing and amounted to detriments to a limited degree. It was not satisfied, however, that those detriments were because of the protected disclosures. The tribunal found the disciplinary process was triggered by the claimant's refusal to undertake remission work and issues arising from daily work group meetings and later correspondence, not by protected disclosures.
The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal did not find that the matters relied on, individually or cumulatively, were likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The tribunal also found that the respondent had gone some way to addressing the claimant's concerns about records by offering deletion, amendment or annotation of documents.
The disability discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal accepted some disabilities were admitted, but did not find PVFS/CFS/ME to be a disability at the relevant time. It found the direct discrimination allegations were not because of disability, the section 15 claim failed on causation, and the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the disciplinary process did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and the relevant managers could not reasonably have been expected to know of such disadvantage.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive unfair dismissal / protected disclosure constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that PIDs 2, 3, 4 and 5 were protected disclosures, but PID 6 was not. Some asserted acts were detriments to a limited extent, but the tribunal was not satisfied that any detriment was on the ground of protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed. The respondent admitted disability by psychosis, schizophrenia, reactive mental health symptoms and sleep apnoea, but the tribunal did not find PVFS/CFS/ME to be a disability for Equality Act purposes at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that a need for clear and precise communication arose in consequence of disability, but did not find the unfavourable treatment was because of that need. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found the disciplinary process PCP did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know of such a disadvantage. |
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Darnton v University of Surrey
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Manchester NHS Trust v Fecitt
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Bailey
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Department for Work and Pensions v Boyers
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
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.