MJ v Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited t/a Wells Pharmacy — 2025

The Claimant had systemic lupus erythematosus and disability was not in dispute. The tribunal heard a long liability hearing about staffing, cover, training, the Claimant's stress risk assessment, an investigation into complaints by colleagues, and the Respondent's handling of meetings and suspension. It found that the key operational decisions were driven by resourcing problems and workplace disputes rather than by disability in most respects.

Most of the direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that RC and SGh were responding to shifting staffing shortages, regional meetings, annual leave and sickness, and that actions such as asking the Claimant to phone branches for cover on 26 February 2023, redeploying SA on 23 March 2023, arranging staff cover in April and May, and taking the later disciplinary steps were not because of disability. The victimisation allegations also failed because the tribunal did not find the protected acts caused the relevant decisions or investigations.

The main reasonable-adjustments success concerned 27 March 2023, when the Claimant was required to work behind closed doors. The tribunal found that locking and unlocking the doors caused her difficulty and discomfort because of manual dexterity problems linked to her lupus, and that the Respondent knew or should have known of that disadvantage from the Claimant's emails to SGh. It held that a reasonable step would have been to temporarily close the quieter branch and make the proper notifications, rather than continue with locked-door trading.

The other reasonable-adjustments success concerned the 13 July 2023 investigation meeting. The tribunal found that the Respondent had agreed, through the stress risk assessment process, that meetings requiring the Claimant's participation should be given advance notice. It held that attending an investigation meeting without notice caused additional stress and that reasonable notice and a broad outline of the issues should have been given. The tribunal therefore upheld the reasonable-adjustments complaint for that incident, while dismissing the remaining reasonable-adjustments allegations.

The tribunal also upheld part of the s.15 disability-arising claim and the s.44 ERA health and safety detriment claim arising from Vicky Carter's comments on 13 July 2023. It found that the remarks that the Claimant was not in control of the situation whether she had a mental health condition or not, and that the meeting would not be rescheduled and she would not be seen again, were unfavourable and a detriment. Those comments were linked to the Claimant's earlier stress-risk arrangements and the health-and-safety concerns she had raised, but the tribunal did not find direct discrimination or victimisation in relation to them.

The tribunal dismissed the complaints about the Claimant's suspension on 18 July 2023, the colleague grievances that led to the investigation, the training arrangements for new starters, and the final written warning. It found that SGh suspended the Claimant because she refused to return to the management meeting and there were outstanding management issues to resolve, not because of disability or protected acts. The successful complaints were listed for a separate remedy hearing, and no compensation figure was determined in this judgment.