Case 2300942/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr A. Chowdhury v Dr Fernandes and Partners and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 2300942/2023
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr S. Sheath, Mr C. Rogers
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Dr A. Chowdhury
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a salaried GP from 3 August 2022 to 20 September 2022. The tribunal accepted that she had repetitive strain injury, and that it had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities earlier in 2022, but found that the effects were not long-term by August and September 2022. It therefore held that she was not a disabled person at the relevant time for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
Even if that conclusion was wrong, the reasonable adjustments complaint failed. The tribunal accepted that the requirement to undertake patient appointments as scheduled could place the claimant at a disadvantage in telephone consultations, but not in face-to-face consultations. It found the respondent did not have the relevant knowledge until 17 August 2022, and that the proposed adjustments either were agreed or could have been implemented, were not needed, or were not reasonable in the circumstances, including breaks between appointments, physiotherapy, longer appointments, reduced administration tasks, a headset or dictaphone, and an ergonomic keyboard.
The section 15 claim also failed. The tribunal found that, although the claimant had sought workplace adjustments, the dismissal on 20 September 2022 was driven by the way she interacted with the partners, which they perceived as negative and critical, and by a clash of personalities and expectations. The tribunal did not accept that the dismissal was because of the claimant's request for adjustments.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded only in part. The respondent accepted that it had inadvertently underpaid the claimant's basic salary, and the tribunal found that £815.01 gross was properly due and unpaid in her September 2022 pay. The tribunal rejected the holiday pay element and held that the pension contribution complaint did not fall within the wages jurisdiction, referring to Somerset County Council v Chambers. The claimant was awarded £815.01 gross, with tax and National Insurance to be dealt with by her.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under ss.20/21 Equality Act 2010, including auxiliary-aid allegations under s.20(5), was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time and, in any event, there had been no failure to make reasonable adjustments or provide auxiliary aids. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal was not because of the claimant's need or request for workplace adjustments; it was due to the way she interacted with the partners and a clash of personalities and expectations. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded only in respect of arrears of basic pay in September 2022. The holiday pay element was rejected and the pension contribution point was rejected as outside the wages jurisdiction. | Upheld | — | £815 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £815
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT 0417/12
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.