Ms L Madhavan v R Gil-Candon, S Douglass, P Hedges (a partnership trading as Shotton Lane Surgery) — 2022

The tribunal found that Ms Madhavan had worked for the surgery since 1994 and had multiple sclerosis, but it did not accept that the respondent was generally trying to force her out after an ill-health retirement discussion. It found that the discussion about ill-health retirement had been genuine, that the claimant had agreed reduced hours in 2003, and that many of the later complaints about stairs, parking, the front door and overtime were not established on the evidence as matters she had clearly raised with Ms Evans or the doctors before the grievance process.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the 29 November 2019 phone call was inappropriate: Ms Evans rang the claimant on a non-working day, spoke forcefully, and demanded that she come in to do work the respondent believed had not been done. However, it found that this incident, viewed in context, was not a repudiatory breach of contract either on its own or cumulatively with the earlier matters relied on. The tribunal also held that the claimant was not left without engagement from the respondent: Dr Gil-Candon and Dr Douglass spoke with her, a grievance process was opened, an appeal was heard, and mediation was offered. The claimant resigned on 24 April 2020, but the tribunal found she had resigned rather than being dismissed.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been overlooked for other roles or allocated menial tasks because of something arising in consequence of her disability. Its finding was that the workload issues were driven by the surgery being busy and short of resources, and that Ms Evans did not have ill will towards the claimant because she declined overtime. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was having difficulty with the stairs, the car park barrier or the entrance doors. It therefore held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered on the facts found. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.