Case 2201484/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Uduje (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201484/2019
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Cameron, Ms J Grant
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Uduje (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant, an Educational Psychologist employed from 1 January 2014 until her dismissal on 3 October 2019, was disabled by chronic pain from 28 July 2016. It also found that she was disabled by CFS/ME from 28 May 2019, when the respondent had actual knowledge of that diagnosis from her fit note. The tribunal found that anxiety and depression were also capable of amounting to a disability, but the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that this condition was long term at the relevant time. On limitation, the tribunal treated the discrimination complaints as part of an ongoing situation and held that it had jurisdiction to consider them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 EqA 2010 dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent had already made extensive adjustments, and was not under a duty to provide a scribe or recording facility for line-management meetings, to delay the performance process further, or to reduce the work targets beyond the adjustments already made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the challenged measures were unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability, but held that each was objectively justified by the legitimate aim of maintaining acceptable attendance and performance and delivering the service. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010 dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegations arising from the 22 August 2018 workplan meeting, the April 2019 emails, and the 2 October 2019 sickness panel meeting, finding the conduct was not related to disability in the required sense or did not create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim dismissed. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability, that the respondent obtained updated medical advice and held a meeting before dismissal, and that dismissal on 3 October 2019 fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
- Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd v Doolan
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.