Case 2206094/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Simpson v Ms Eilidh Wood, solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206094/2018
- Decision date
- 18 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
- Panel members
- Mr Martin Simon, Mr Stephen Soskin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was a customer assistant with admitted disability arising from moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The tribunal heard that he had received a 'Legendary' rating in 2015 and 2016, that he was acting up on some Sunday mornings, and that in April 2018 his half-year review was marked 'Performing'. In May 2018 he learned that Mr Shafqat Hussain had been selected for step-up training towards Assistant Manager, which led him to complain that he had been overlooked because of disability.
On the promotion complaint, the tribunal accepted the Claimant's account of the relevant facts and said those facts were enough to reverse the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the Respondent had not given any satisfactory explanation for why Mr Macauley's nomination had been blocked by Mr Malik, and it said the direct discrimination case was made out. However, it held that the acts complained of were before 18 May 2018, so the direct discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine them, and it did not extend time on just and equitable grounds.
The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded. The tribunal found that Access to Work and RBLI had identified aids and equipment in December 2016 that would assist the Claimant, but the Respondent did not process the recommendation and obtain the equipment in a reasonable and timely way. It accepted that there was some explanation for a temporary hold after the Claimant said in August 2017 that he might leave, but said that did not explain the earlier delay, and that the failure to act persisted from December 2017 through to August 2018. That claim was the only one upheld.
The harassment claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the alleged shouting incident or the nickname 'Manager' related to disability. The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal doubted that the Claimant had done a protected act. The flexible working complaint also failed: the tribunal found it was not connected to the hearing impairment and had been overtaken by the Claimant's back-related absence and later change in position. No remedy was determined in the judgment; the tribunal left the parties to agree remedy or apply for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal said the facts were sufficient to reverse the burden of proof and that the failure to implement Mr Macauley's nomination of the Claimant for step-up training amounted to direct discrimination, but it held the acts complained of were before 18 May 2018 and therefore out of time and outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found a failure to process the Access to Work and RBLI recommendations and to provide the aids and equipment identified for the Claimant between December 2017 and August 2018, and held that this was a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The allegations relied on were an incident on 8 May 2018 when a colleague shouted at the Claimant for not hearing a customer and the use of the nickname 'Manager'; the tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct related to disability and also held the complaint out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal shared the case management judge's doubts that the Claimant had done a protected act, so the victimisation claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | The tribunal found the request to work part-time was not made for a reason relating to the Claimant's hearing disability and had been overtaken by his back-related absence and later change of position. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434 (CA)
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.