Case 1804409/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amanda Goodwin v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804409/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Tribunal
- Panel members
- Graham Corbett, Lynda Anderson-Coe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amanda Goodwin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a community phlebotomist and had migraines which the respondent accepted amounted to a disability. Her disability-related absences increased from 2019. The respondent had previously adjusted absence triggers by 50%, progressed the claimant through its Managing Attendance Policy, and dismissed her at Stage 4 on 9 July 2021 on capability grounds connected to attendance.
The tribunal found that migraine-related absences arose from disability and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of those absences. Although the respondent had a legitimate aim of securing regular attendance to deliver safe and high-quality services, dismissal was not proportionate. The tribunal placed weight on the July 2021 Occupational Health report, which recorded recent medication changes and an improved outlook, and found that waiting about six months would have reduced the discriminatory impact while still allowing the respondent to manage attendance.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found capability by reference to health was a potentially fair reason, but the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The respondent had not properly considered the July 2021 Occupational Health report, had not discussed it substantively with the claimant, and had not properly considered redeployment. The reasonable adjustments and direct disability discrimination claims were dismissed for the reasons set out in the judgment. Remedy was left for a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It held that the respondent acted outside the band of reasonable responses by not waiting a reasonable period to see whether the positive prognosis in the July 2021 Occupational Health report was borne out, and by failing to give proper consideration to redeployment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to dismissal. The tribunal found dismissal was because of past and likely future absences arising from migraine disability and was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim. Other s15 allegations concerning attendance-management reviews, alternative work, and flexible working did not succeed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20-21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found some PCPs and disadvantage were established, but the adjustments relied on were either already made, not reasonable, not effective, or had not yet arisen. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the named comparator was not appropriate and there was no evidence supporting an inference that the failure to provide alternative administrative work was because of disability. |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20(1) Equality Act 2010
- Martin v City and County of Swansea
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011
- Noor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Ltd
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- S v Dundee City Council
- York City Council 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.