Ms Sharlene Edey v London Borough of Lambeth — 2017

The Tribunal dismissed all extant claims. It found that most of the Claimant’s allegations of racist comments, disablist comments, adverse treatment by colleagues and managers, and instructions to discriminate were unsubstantiated, and it preferred the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses where accounts conflicted.

On disability, the Tribunal accepted that the Claimant was disabled, but found that the Respondent had or should have had knowledge of that disability from 14 January 2016, when the Occupational Health report was received. Allegations of disability discrimination before that date therefore failed. The Tribunal also rejected the complaint that home working or the proposed return-to-work arrangements were reasonable adjustments, finding that a substantial part of the Claimant’s role had to be performed at school and that the medical information available did not support a safe return on the basis proposed.

In relation to later complaints about grievances, sickness management, police reporting, suspension, and the disciplinary investigation, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s explanations and found no causal link with race, disability, or protected acts. It held that the overtime deduction claim was out of time and not proved in any event.

On dismissal, the Tribunal found that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant for conduct, namely its belief that she had been involved in the preparation and distribution of malicious anonymous emails. It held that there had been a reasonable investigation, that the disciplinary panel had genuine grounds for its belief, and that summary dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims therefore failed, and the appeal process was also found to have been conducted appropriately.