Mrs S Wordsworth v Medical and Legal Admin Services Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that Mrs S Wordsworth was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of osteoarthritis and COPD, both of which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. It also recorded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because she lacked qualifying service, and no jurisdiction over the separate defamation and Data Protection Act 2018 complaints. The Equality Act claims that it determined were direct age and disability discrimination, a reasonable adjustments complaint about use of a stairlift, and an age-related harassment complaint.

On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been recruited as an administrator, but found that much of her early work consisted of scanning and some typing review work because the respondent had a backlog and hoped eventually to assign her to work for Lynda Lee. It found that extending probation in November 2019 and moving her to an administrative assistant role in December 2019 were decisions based on the respondent's assessment of performance and role fit, not on age or disability. It further found that the June 2020 redundancy dismissal and the appeal outcome were explained by pandemic-related reductions in work and the closure of the office, and that the grievance, DSAR handling, and citing the claimant as a witness were not shown to be age- or disability-related.

On reasonable adjustments, the claimant said she had been told at induction that the stairlift in the shared building was for clients only. The tribunal found that this instruction was given by Catherine Page-Howard with ostensible authority, but that an email on 24 October 2019 told staff and visitors that the stairlift could be used. It held that the claimant's need to go up and down stairs for post distribution caused no more than a minor or trivial disadvantage, so the section 20 duty was not engaged. In any event, it held that the complaint was outside the limitation period and there was no basis for extending time, although it accepted the respondent had constructive knowledge of the claimant's disabilities.

The harassment complaint failed because the tribunal did not accept that the claimant had been called 'mother' or 'granny'. It noted that the allegation was not raised in the grievance or appeal documents, that the respondent's witnesses denied it, and that the claimant's evidence on the point was generalised and unspecific. All remaining Equality Act complaints were dismissed.