Case 1805347/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Walton v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805347/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Lee, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Walton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted that Mrs Walton was disabled. The tribunal upheld her reasonable-adjustments complaint about the stage 2 sickness absence review meeting on 15 September 2021, finding that the policy of allowing only a work colleague or trade union representative to attend placed her at a substantial disadvantage because of the risk associated with her cardiac condition and the remote format of the meeting. It held that allowing her husband, or another family member, to attend to support her would have been a modest adjustment, and that the respondent ought to have sought clarification rather than deciding the request on the basis of the August 2021 telephone discussion. Although the claim was presented outside the primary three-month time limit, the tribunal extended time as just and equitable because she was in hospital and believed the limitation period had already expired.
The tribunal dismissed the separate reasonable-adjustments complaint about a return to work. It found that there was a PCP requiring the claimant to work at least three days per week and to carry out duties from the Settle clinic, other GP practices and by domiciliary visits, but held there was no breach because she resigned before the phased return recommended by occupational health could be implemented. The tribunal said there was no basis for concluding that the proposed adjustments would not have been accepted.
The tribunal also dismissed the unfair and discriminatory constructive dismissal complaint. It held that the failure to permit the husband's attendance at the September 2021 meeting was capable of amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, but the claimant affirmed the contract by remaining employed for about nine months, engaging in the grievance and occupational-health processes, and resigning only after those steps. It rejected the other alleged breaches, including the handling of grievance-related document requests, the wording of the occupational-health referral and the sick pay issue. A remedy hearing was directed only for the upheld reasonable-adjustments claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to allow support by attendance of the claimant's husband, or another family member, at the 15 September 2021 stage 2 sickness absence review meeting. The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the primary time limit but allowed it to proceed as just and equitable; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The separate reasonable-adjustments complaint about a return to work, including the PCPs requiring the claimant to work at least three days per week and to carry out duties from the Settle clinic, other GP practices and domiciliary visits. The tribunal held there was no breach because the claimant resigned before the phased return recommended by occupational health could be implemented. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The unfair and discriminatory constructive dismissal complaint. The tribunal held that the claimant affirmed the contract by remaining employed for about nine months, engaging in grievance and occupational-health processes, and resigning only after those steps; it rejected the other alleged breaches as insufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.20 EqA 2010 reasonable adjustments duty
- Schedule 8 para 2 EqA 2010 knowledge
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension of time
- Hendricks continuing act
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 constructive dismissal
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Buckland v Bournemouth University
- Malik v BCCI SA trust and confidence
- Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority
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.