Case 1803675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Bath v The Local Authority Heard: In person — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803675/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr M Brewer, Mr D Wilks
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Bath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Bath worked as a senior social worker from October 2020 and was dismissed on 12 May 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent knew she had dyslexia and recurrent depression and anxiety. Her Equality Act complaints were about section 15 discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment.
On section 15, the tribunal found that the conduct relied on for dismissal included visits to the manager's home and messages to the manager, the spouse and the manager's friend. It accepted that the claimant's actions arose in consequence of disability because alcohol was a coping mechanism for her impairment and some communications may have occurred during dissociation. The claim still failed because the tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of safeguarding clients and employees and maintaining conduct standards.
The reasonable adjustments complaints also failed. On access to the claimant's Read and Write software, the tribunal accepted she would have taken longer to prepare without it, but found the request was made too late and that it was not reasonable to require immediate provision at that stage; it noted that she could have asked earlier or sought a postponement. On the request for more time or an adjournment during the disciplinary hearing, the tribunal found that neither she nor her representative asked for longer and that the respondent was not reasonably required to adjourn. The later Wellness Action Plan-related allegations were said to be out of time and, in any event, not made out on the facts found.
The harassment complaints about the inclusion of PIPOT and mental health information in the disciplinary file, and the investigating officer's wording, were dismissed. The tribunal found that the information was included for the investigation and hearing, was not shared beyond those who needed it, and was not done with the purpose or effect required by section 26. The final judgment dismissed all Equality Act complaints and no compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 complaint about the dismissal on 12 May 2022. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's conduct was linked to disability-related alcohol use and occasional dissociation, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of safeguarding clients and employees and maintaining conduct standards. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments complaints about access to Read and Write software for the disciplinary statement, more time or an adjournment during the hearing, and later Wellness Action Plan-related matters. The tribunal found no breach and said some of the later allegations were out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints about inclusion of PIPOT and mental health information in the disciplinary bundle and the investigating officer's wording. The tribunal found the material was included for the investigation and hearing, was not shared beyond those who needed it, and did not satisfy the statutory test for harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- T-Systems v Lewis four stage test
- IPC Media Limited v Millar
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Ridout v TC Group
- Spence-v-Intype Libra
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Matuszowicz v Kingston upon Hull City Council
- Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Mr GS Virdi v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- City of York v Grosset
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.