Mrs M Smith, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019

Miss S Nomberg began work for Benny P Limited on 10 March 2016 as an Office Administrator and Personal Assistant to the Directors on a salary of £30,000, later increased to £33,000. After she was diagnosed with cervical cancer on 18 April 2018, the tribunal found that the respondent arranged temporary cover and that, as a matter of agreement, she continued on full pay while she worked only when able during treatment and recovery. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that there had been a loan arrangement or that the claimant's contract had been varied so that she would later have to repay the difference.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found that the 25 July 2019 meeting did not amount to a dismissal within s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996. On the tribunal's findings, the claimant agreed to leave, Mr Laznik said he would confirm the date, and the 6 August 2019 email confirming 31 August 2019 as her last day reflected a mutually agreed termination. The separate breach of contract claim for notice pay failed for the same reason, because the tribunal held that notice pay only arose if there had been a dismissal.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled after her cancer diagnosis. It rejected the complaint that she had to work in the office on Wednesdays from March 2019, finding that from November 2018 she had agreed to be available from home on Wednesdays and to make up hours at other times. It did find that the first-floor office location, together with the need to use the fourth-floor toilet, placed her at a substantial disadvantage and that moving her desk to the third floor would have alleviated that disadvantage. However, the reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal held that the claim was out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.

The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found there was no dismissal, so the pleaded unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not established on that basis. The harassment claim also failed: the January 2019 telephone exchange happened and was unwanted, but the tribunal found it was not related to disability, and the allegation that the respondent repeatedly demanded that the claimant work on Wednesdays was not made out.

The tribunal could not finally determine the wages, holiday pay and alleged overpayment dispute without further evidence on the sums due from February 2019 onwards. It therefore re-listed the unauthorised deductions claim and the respondent's counterclaim for a further liability hearing, noting that the respondent's spreadsheet overstated some working days and that SSP and accrued holiday would need to be taken into account. No final monetary award was made in this judgment.