Ms A Queiroz v Medical Services International Limited — 2022

Ms A Queiroz worked for Medical Services International Limited as a healthcare assistant on the oncology ward. After a back injury in 2020 and later medical evidence confirming fibromyalgia and central pain sensitisation, the respondent accepted that she could not return to full ward duties without adjustment. The tribunal found that Ms Doran arranged interim adjustments and redeployment into the pre-admissions clinic from May 2021, where the claimant worked on lighter duties while the respondent explored other options.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments because it did not offer the claimant the outpatients vacancy that arose in late November 2021. It found that the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by the requirement to perform the full ward role, and that the employer's own redeployment process meant it should have identified and offered the vacancy rather than leaving the claimant to monitor vacancy lists herself. It also extended time for this part of the claim on the just and equitable basis, noting that the claimant did not know of the vacancy at the relevant time and had been pursuing a grievance about the underlying events.

On the dismissal claims, the tribunal found that the cumulative effect of failures to deal properly with Ms Gerona's conduct, to respond to the claimant's concerns about her future employment, to deal with the shift and redeployment issues, and to manage the aftermath of 1 February 2022 breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It concluded that those breaches were the substantial reason for the claimant's resignation, that she had not affirmed the contract, and that she was constructively dismissed. It also held, on the ordinary unfair dismissal issue, that there was no potentially fair reason for the dismissal and therefore the dismissal was unfair.

The harassment, direct disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that some of the conduct was unwanted and that Ms Gerona's comments and tone could be rude, harsh, or hostile, but it did not find that the conduct was related to disability for the purposes of s.26 or s.13 Equality Act 2010. For the s.15 claim, it accepted that the claimant's inability to do all ward duties arose from her disability, but it found that the treatment complained of was not because of that consequence of disability. No remedy was quantified in this liability judgment; the tribunal recorded that a remedy hearing would follow.