Mrs D Haggerty v Modality Partnership — 2021

The tribunal found that Mrs Haggerty was disabled by reason of cancer and that the dismissal and appeal rejection were unfavourable treatment. It held that the only conduct linked to disability was the expletive used on 8 October 2020, which it accepted was driven by heightened anxiety after a medical consultation on 7 October 2020 about possible cancer recurrence. The respondent accepted that the claimant’s stress on that day was understandable, and the tribunal concluded that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent’s aims.

On the September 2020 complaint-handling issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had followed the respondent’s process by recording the patient complaint and escalating it because the line-management position had been unclear. It held that the instruction to call the patient back and insist on a written complaint was not a reasonable management instruction in the circumstances, and it rejected the later allegation of serious insubordination. The tribunal also found that Emma Nicholson had not treated the matter as wrongdoing at the time.

Under section 103A ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant made protected disclosures on 5 October 2020 and 8 October 2020 about Covid-related health and safety concerns, and that the principal reason for dismissal was that she had made those disclosures. Under section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996, it likewise held that she had brought to the respondent’s attention by reasonable means circumstances connected with her work which she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, and that the principal reason for dismissal was that she had done so. It declined any reduction for contributory conduct under either the Equality Act or the 1996 Act, and remedy was left to a later hearing.