Case 1801488/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Lewis v Wooltex UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801488/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms N H Downey, Mrs N Arshad-Mather
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hayes worked as a warper and had type 2 diabetes with serious foot complications. He was absent from August 2018 after foot ulceration and later toe amputations. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of his disability and that the absence caused operational difficulty and cost, but it found that the process was strongly influenced by HR manager Nicola Winrow and finance director Carl Winrow, and that Steve Adams did not reach a fully independent decision on dismissal.
The tribunal found that the timetable set in July 2019, requiring return by 21 October 2019, was unrealistic in light of the medical evidence then available. It relied in particular on the podiatrist's July 2019 letter, which said return within three months was possible, not certain, and on the later 18 December 2019 letter, which the tribunal read as cautiously supportive of a phased return by early January 2020. It held that the dismissal letter sent on 24 October 2019 was issued too soon, and that the appeal decision of 9 January 2020 did not cure the unfairness.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It also upheld the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim, finding that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and that the respondent had not shown justification. It further upheld the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21, holding that the respondent should have allowed more time or adapted its absence process to accommodate the claimant's position.
Remedy was not assessed in this judgment. The tribunal adjourned remedy to a later hearing and made no Polkey finding at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal on 24 October 2019, and the rejection of the appeal on 9 January 2020, were outside the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. Remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim: the tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably by dismissal because of something arising in consequence of his disability, and that the respondent did not show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 claim: the tribunal found the respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice requiring the claimant to be fit to work as a warper, which put him at a substantial disadvantage, and failed to make reasonable adjustments by allowing more time or adapting the absence process. Remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- First Hampshire & Dorset Limited v Parhar
- Ramphal v Dept of Transport
- Chhabra v West London Mental Health Trust
- Equality Act 2010 section 15 proportionality / legitimate aim test
- Equality Act 2010 sections 20-21 reasonable adjustments test
- EHRC Statutory Code of Practice: Employment (2015)
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.