Case 2200604/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Salter, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200604/2022
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms Lopez-Barillas, Ms Jones
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Salter, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Churchman's anxiety and depression was accepted as a disability under s6 EqA, and the respondent accepted actual knowledge from 17 June 2021. The tribunal also recorded that the claim against Confluence Tax LLP was withdrawn and dismissed. The remaining claims were discrimination arising from disability, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal found that the claimant's 24 September 2021 email asking to work more from a background role and avoid direct client contact was a request for adjustments connected with her disability. It rejected the respondent's case that she had been dishonest or had changed her position about not attending the office on 18 November 2021. The tribunal found there was no 7.00am communication, that she had said she was staying at home because of possible Covid exposure, and that attendance in the office that day had not been made mandatory.
On those findings, the tribunal upheld the s15 EqA claim. It found the dismissal was driven by the employer's concern that the claimant's absence was becoming harder to manage and that her role was client facing, in the context of her request to move away from direct client contact, rather than by dishonesty. It also upheld the victimisation claim, finding that the 24 September 2021 request for adjustments was a protected act and that dismissal was the detriment.
The reasonable-adjustments claim was upheld in part. The tribunal rejected the alleged PCP of requiring trust and confidence to be maintained between employer and employee, but it found the respondent failed to follow its disciplinary policy for probationary employees. It noted that the contract and handbook applied the disciplinary policy to all employees regardless of length of service, that the claimant's probation had ended on 4 June 2021, and that occupational health had recommended notice, advance papers, a break, and accompaniment for any disciplinary meeting. No remedy figure is set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim against Confluence Tax LLP withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | s15 EqA discrimination arising from disability: dismissal was unfavourable treatment and the justification defence failed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | s27 EqA victimisation: the 24 September 2021 email requesting adjustments was treated as a protected act and dismissal was the detriment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | s20-21 EqA reasonable adjustments claim upheld in part: the alleged PCP requiring trust and confidence to be maintained was rejected, but the practice of not following the disciplinary policy for probationary employees was found to be a failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s15 EqA
- s20-21 EqA
- s27 EqA
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Charlesworth v Dronsfield Engineering
- Hardy & Hansons plc v Lax
- Essop and Naeem v Home Office (UK Border Agency) and Secretary of State for Justice
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd
- Nagarajan v Agnew
- O'Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
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.