Mrs Lisa Fenton v Mrs Sandra Nicholson — 2021

Mrs Lisa Fenton brought disability discrimination and Working Time Regulations-related complaints against Mrs Sandra Nicholson. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chronic back pain, and it found that the respondent knew or ought to have known of that disability from the start of the employment. It reached that conclusion from the evidence about the claimant's back condition, her use of a disability parking badge, her receipt of PIP and mobility allowance, her comments about heavy lifting and back pain, her use of a camping/fishing chair, and the small and personal nature of the care arrangement.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal found there was no provision, criterion or practice requiring carers to sit on a kitchen chair for long periods. It found that carers could use the lounge seating, including settees and a reclining chair, and that the claimant in fact used her own chair. The tribunal also found there was no PCP requiring carers to work additional hours; after the care package increased, the respondent asked all carers whether they could cover more time while trying to preserve continuity of care, but she did not impose a requirement to work 12-hour shifts or target the claimant for extra hours.

The section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the remark made on 17 March 2019 was about the claimant's role in finalising the roster and the concerns of other staff, not because of something arising in consequence of her disability. It found that the claimant remained rostered for 10-hour night shifts until she walked out, and that she was not forced to work additional hours.

The harassment complaint under section 26 failed for the same reason. The tribunal found that the words relied on were not as the claimant asserted, and that in context they were not related to disability but to the roster and the claimant's difficulties in completing it. The Working Time Regulations-related complaint under section 45A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found no breach of the night-work limits on the roster evidence and no detriment: the claimant's belief that the regulations had been breached was mistaken, but she was not subjected to detriment for refusing to forego a right or for alleging an infringement. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.