Case 1805424/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Knight v Hull City Council Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805424/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Dr D Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Knight was a disabled employee with fibromyalgia, depression and anxiety, and by late 2018 PTSD symptoms. Her housing post was deleted in a 2019 restructure, she was given redundancy notice in February 2020, and the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy because the council's need for area-based Grade 12 housing management had ceased. The tribunal also found that the respondent knew she was significantly impaired in engaging with the redeployment process and that her functioning fluctuated during the restructure.
The harassment complaint was dismissed. The tribunal held that the restructure-related communications complained of did not amount to disability-related harassment and, where relevant, the earlier February and November 2019 matters were out of time. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal upheld the claim in part. It found that the respondent ought reasonably to have provided an additional support person, such as an advocate or mental health support worker, to help the claimant engage with redeployment, and that it should have transferred her to an existing vacancy, including the Practice Manager role, or offered suitable vacant hours. Other suggested adjustments, including training, altered assessment, a support worker for the role, and changing selection criteria, were dismissed.
The tribunal also upheld the section 15 complaint in part. It found that not appointing the claimant to the Grade 12 roles and not retaining or redeploying her was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability, namely her inability at that time to participate effectively in the process. It held that the respondent had not shown the treatment to be proportionate or justified, because less discriminatory alternatives were available. The unfair dismissal complaint also succeeded: although redundancy was the reason for dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent acted outside the range of reasonable responses by failing to offer suitable alternative employment and by not taking reasonable steps to mitigate the hardship of dismissal.
The supplied text records liability only and does not set out any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the disability-related harassment complaint overall, including the allegations about the February 2019 email, the November 2019 expression-of-interest deadline, the January 2020 outcome message, and the February 2020 stress-risk-assessment issue. It also said the earlier February and November 2019 allegations were outside the primary Equality Act time limit and would not have been time-extended. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Partly upheld under the reasonable-adjustments duty. The tribunal found the respondent ought reasonably to have transferred the claimant to an existing vacancy, including the Practice Manager role, and/or provided an additional support person such as a supervisor, HR support, an advocate, or mental health support to help her engage with redeployment. Other alleged adjustments, including training, modified assessment, a support worker, and changing selection criteria, were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Partly upheld under section 15. The tribunal found the failure to retain/redeploy the claimant was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability, and that the respondent had not shown this to be justified. The remaining section 15-style allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Redundancy was the established reason for dismissal, but the tribunal held the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not act reasonably in treating redundancy as sufficient. In particular, it failed to offer suitable alternative employment or properly support redeployment, including where vacant hours in the Practice Manager role were available. |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam Limited
- R v British Coal Corporation ex parte Price
- Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union
- T-Systems v Lewis four-stage test
- IPC Media Limited v Millar
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Ridout v TC Group
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Pensions
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.