Case 2206376/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Normoyle v Qatalog Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206376/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms L Simms, Ms J Cameron
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms A Normoyle
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms A Normoyle, brought disability discrimination complaints arising from her dismissal by Qatalog Ltd and Mr M Tariq. The tribunal found that she had depression and anxiety, and that she had discussed mental health matters and medication changes with colleagues, but it concluded that the first and second respondents did not have actual or constructive knowledge that she met the legal definition of disability. In particular, the tribunal accepted that they knew she was struggling with mental health issues, but not that there was a long-term substantial effect on day-to-day activities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
On the direct discrimination complaint, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the second respondent's comment about team members having mental health issues and managing to figure things out was made on 2 June 2021. It found the comment was made on another occasion, was intended to be supportive, and would have been made to a non-disabled employee in the same circumstances. The tribunal also found there were no facts from which it could infer direct discrimination.
On the s.15 claim, the tribunal found that the dismissal was not caused by any side effects or withdrawal symptoms from the claimant coming off medication. Instead, the second respondent decided to end employment because he had lost confidence in her performance as his executive assistant after repeated minor errors, culminating in the delayed preparation of the All Hands deck on 1 June 2021. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but said that was not the claim before it, and it found the dismissal reason was performance rather than something arising in consequence of disability.
On harassment, the tribunal found that ignoring the claimant's Slack message, saying the EA role had to be dependable, and sending the follow-up email saying she was not a good fit were unwanted conduct. However, it held that the conduct related to the decision to dismiss and the performance concerns, not to disability, and that it did not have the purpose or reasonable effect required by s.26. The complaint of disability discrimination was therefore dismissed in full, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the alleged 2 June 2021 comment about team members with mental health issues was not made on that date, was intended to be supportive, and would have been made to a non-disabled employee in the same circumstances. It also found there were no facts from which discrimination could be inferred and no actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability by the first or second respondent. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010. The tribunal found the decision to dismiss was because the second respondent had lost confidence in the claimant's performance after repeated minor errors, culminating in the delayed All Hands deck, and not because of side effects or withdrawal symptoms from medication. It found the second respondent was not aware of those alleged effects, and that the post-dismissal email was only confirmatory of the dismissal decision. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under s.26 EqA 2010. The tribunal found some conduct was unwanted, including ignoring the Slack message, saying the EA role had to be dependable, and sending the email saying the claimant was not a good fit, but held that the conduct related to the dismissal/performance issues rather than the claimant's disability. It also held the conduct did not have the purpose or the reasonable effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Gallop v Newport City Council [2014] IRLR 211
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011
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.