Case 1801814/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Irabor v Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Heard by: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801814/2020
- Decision date
- 16 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman
- Panel members
- Mrs L J Anderson-Coe, Mrs L Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Irabor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs E Irabor was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of lower back pain and its effect on day-to-day activities. It also extended time for any acts said to have occurred on 18 September 2019, finding that any delay was short and that it was just and equitable to do so because of the claimant's illness.
The direct disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's sickness absence policy limited representation at formal meetings to a trade union representative or work colleague, and found that Ms Brack's request to identify Dr Taiwo before the meeting was not less favourable treatment. It found that Dr Taiwo was later allowed into the meeting once his details were confirmed, that the claimant could have been represented by UNISON or a colleague, and that there was no substantial disadvantage for the purposes of the reasonable adjustments claim.
The direct race discrimination, associative race discrimination, and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal found no detriment or less favourable treatment because of race or because the claimant had made a protected complaint of race discrimination on 18 September 2019. It accepted that the claimant was referred to occupational health and moved to Stage 2 in line with the sickness absence process, and that Ms Brack reported the earlier incident to a senior manager the same day.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the tribunal held that the claim was really about injury allowance, that injury allowance is not wages for section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 purposes, and that the claimant had lodged her application late. The tribunal found there was no deduction to recover and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim covering the alleged delay over injury allowance, non-disclosure of meeting notes, representation issues, occupational health referral, referral to a senior manager, and prompt processing of the injury allowance application. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim based on the sickness absence procedure requirement that a representative be a work colleague or trade union representative; the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim based on the same alleged acts as the disability claim, plus the request for Dr Taiwo to identify himself at the meeting on 18 September 2019. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Associative race discrimination claim based on Dr Taiwo's race; the tribunal identified his race as African and found no less favourable treatment because of that characteristic. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The protected act relied on was the verbal complaint of race discrimination on 18 September 2019; the tribunal found no detriment and no victimisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.129 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension of time
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.