Ms Donaldson First v Ms Evans-Jarvis Second Respondent: Mr Dear and Mr Mukulu — 2022

Mrs Armoniene worked as a cleaner for Endersham from 2016 and at Fleetcor from 2017. The tribunal heard that Mr Sessions at Fleetcor had complained about her contact and tone, but also described her cleaning as good. In March 2020 she began furlough from the Fleetcor role under the Job Retention Scheme. The claim against the Second Respondent was withdrawn during the hearing; all remaining claims were against Endersham.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. Although there was evidence of stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance and related symptoms, the tribunal found no substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities was proved on the evidence. Applying section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the Igen/Madarassy approach, the tribunal found no basis to infer race or disability discrimination, and accepted the respondent's explanations where findings could be made on the evidence. In particular, when Fleetcor asked for the claimant to be replaced, the tribunal found that the reason she was moved off the Fleetcor site was that request, with Yesmi used as a replacement because she was already working in the building.

The direct race discrimination, race harassment and victimisation claims failed. The tribunal found no evidential basis that the claimant's Lithuanian or Eastern European origin affected the decisions made, and no basis for the suggestion that Spanish-speaking staff were preferred. Many of the harassment allegations were vague or unsupported, and the tribunal found that the conduct relied on was not related to race. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that some complaints and the February 2021 grievance were protected acts, but found no detriment was shown to have been imposed because of those acts.

The disability discrimination and disability harassment claims also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time, so the section 15 and reasonable-adjustments complaints could not succeed. Even if that finding were wrong, the tribunal said the facts did not provide a proper basis for linking the relevant conduct to disability. The tribunal also rejected the holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages, written statement, guarantee payment and Agency Workers Regulations complaints, finding that the underlying factual allegations were not made out.

On the dismissal-related claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had texted on 23 October 2020 that she would finish cleaning the flat for the last time and cancel the contract, and held that she intended to resign and that Endersham reasonably understood her text that way. Endersham later did not act on that resignation, instead placing her on authorised paid leave, offering alternative work and carrying out disciplinary and SOSR processes when she continued to contact Fleetcor after being told not to do so. The tribunal held that there was no constructive dismissal, no wrongful dismissal, and no unfair dismissal from Fleetcor's site: there was a single contract of employment, not separate contracts for each site, and if there had been a dismissal it would have been for some other substantial reason and fair. All claims against the First Respondent were dismissed.