In Person For the v Mr Lovejoy (Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019

The claimant worked as a housekeeper from 20 March 2016 at a site where the respondent had no toilet or office facilities. The tribunal found the respondent was aware from the outset that this was a problem and had made some attempts to find a solution, including approaching a site owner about use of toilets and telling staff to use a supermarket toilet about half a kilometre away. After an absence review in January 2018, the claimant told B that she had IBS and diabetes and that this affected the urgency with which she needed toilet facilities; at a further review on 11 April 2018 she said that a toilet would help.

On 7 August 2018 the claimant asked to change her rota so she would not work Mondays. The tribunal found that her underlying reason for that request was to have less contact with B and another employee, not disability. When B refused for logistical reasons, she resigned by email that evening and requested a shorter notice period. The tribunal rejected her evidence that B said she was the worst employee he had, and held that the resignation was prompted by the refusal to alter her Monday working pattern rather than by the earlier matters relied on as a last straw. The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The disability discrimination claim succeeded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal referred to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, Environment Agency v Rowan and Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets in considering the duty, and held that the respondent had not taken adequate steps after being told of the claimant's bowel urgency and toilet need. It noted that no referral to HR or occupational health was made and no reasonable adjustment was put in place to deal with the lack of toilet facilities. The respondent was ordered to pay £6,000 compensation.