Miss A Townend v Willerby Manor Hotel Limited — 2022

The tribunal accepted that Miss A Townend was disabled for Equality Act purposes by cancer and peripheral neuropathy, and that Mr Derek Hill and the respondent knew of that status. It found that a series of emails and meetings in March to May 2019, including Mr Hill's suggestion that she reduce her hours to around 14 per week and his proposals for an operations director and restructuring, were unwanted conduct related to disability and had the relevant effect. It also found that comments in Mr Hill's October 2019 shareholder paper about ill-health retirement and her health were related to disability and had the requisite effect.

Those harassment findings did not result in liability because the tribunal held the harassment complaints were out of time. The claim was presented on 26 June 2020, ACAS early conciliation ran from 18 to 22 June 2020, and the tribunal declined to extend time, noting that the earliest acts were in March 2019 and that she had legal advice throughout. The tribunal therefore dismissed the harassment complaint notwithstanding its findings on some of the underlying conduct.

The section 15 disability discrimination case failed because the pleaded 'something arising in consequence of disability' was the claimant's inability to work 70-80 hours a week, but the tribunal found that Mr Hill did not know she worked those hours and was not acting on that basis. The freestanding reasonable-adjustments complaint also failed because no PCP requiring 70-80 hour weeks was established; the tribunal found she set her own hours. The victimisation complaint failed because, although her email of 13 May 2019 was accepted as a protected act, the later treatment was not shown to be because of that act.

The unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims both failed. After the board decided on 22 April 2020 to close the hotel and start redundancy consultation, the claimant sent a WhatsApp message to employees on 23 April saying the hotel would not reopen and implying notices were already going out. The tribunal held that this was misleading, undermined the intended consultation, and amounted to gross misconduct. It found the respondent genuinely believed this was misconduct, that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, that any procedural defects would not have changed the result, and that summary dismissal without notice was justified. No monetary award was made.