Case 1810155/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Gemma Boylan v DL Insurance Services Limited AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810155/2018
- Decision date
- 18 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs LJ Anderson-Coe, Mr M Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gemma Boylan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Ms Boylan was disabled from 1 June 2018, when it became likely that the substantial adverse effects of her mental impairment, which had caused absence from 12 February 2018, would last at least 12 months. It held that all disability discrimination and harassment complaints before 1 June 2018 failed because she was not disabled before that date.
The Tribunal also found that the Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that she was disabled from 1 June 2018, but it dismissed the reasonable adjustment complaint about not allowing her to record the grievance meeting on 1 June 2018 because the Respondent could not reasonably have known she would be put at a disadvantage. Complaints of harassment for a reason related to disability after 1 June 2018, of not being allowed to work permanently from home, not being offered a trial of home working, and not being redeployed, and of associative disability discrimination or harassment were all dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Ms Boylan did a protected act on 3, 4, 8 and 10 May 2018, but she was not treated unfavourably because of those acts, so victimisation was dismissed. The direct sex discrimination complaint about second product training in 2016 was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also found no facts from which it could conclude that the refusal of fixed shifts or compressed hours was because of sex, age or race. The constructive dismissal complaint was dismissed, and the unfair dismissal complaint was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
13 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | All disability discrimination complaints before 1 June 2018 were dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled before that date. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | All harassment complaints before 1 June 2018 were dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled before that date. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not allowing the Claimant to record the grievance meeting on 1 June 2018 was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Respondent could not reasonably have known she would be put at a disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaints of harassment for a reason related to disability after 1 June 2018 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and/or indirect disability discrimination by not permitting permanent home working, not offering a trial period of working from home, and not redeploying the Claimant were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Associative disability discrimination or harassment was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- knew or ought reasonably to have known
- just and equitable to extend time
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.