Mrs K Liebert, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019

The Claimant worked as a medical secretary for the Respondent and returned after periods of sickness absence following a car accident and later further injury. The dispute centred on her being moved away from reception into a shared room, phased return arrangements, later discussions about reducing hours, and whether she should take ill-health retirement. The tribunal accepted the Claimant had disabilities within the Equality Act, based on occupational health evidence, but it also found that her account that Mr Boyjoonauth asked her to draft the 19 August 2016 letter was false and said that this meant uncorroborated assertions were treated with caution.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the Respondent operated a hot-desking policy and found that the 37.5-hour contractual term was not a provision, criterion or practice within s.20 Equality Act 2010 because it applied only to the Claimant as a contractual term. It also found that desks in the room were allocated to individual staff, so the alleged hot-desking complaint did not arise on the evidence. On direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that the Claimant was advised about ill-health retirement options rather than told or ordered to retire, and that her decision to retire on ill-health grounds was her own.

The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had a disability-related need to work part-time, but it found no unfavourable treatment for the purposes of s.15 Equality Act 2010 and did not accept that the Respondent had instructed her to retire. It also recorded that it did not consider the Claimant had suffered dismissal or any other detriment. The discrimination complaints were held to be out of time, and the tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds because no evidence was given to explain why an extension should be granted. It referred to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434 (CA) when explaining that time limits are exercised strictly.

As to unpaid holiday pay and unlawful deduction of wages, the tribunal said there had been a resolution of the holiday pay issue and that arrears of pay had been paid on 21 December 2018. It said it had no evidence on the alleged outstanding deductions or sums and could not reach a conclusion on that claim. The final order was that all claims were dismissed, both for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, on their merits.