Case 2302035/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S. Gangadeen v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302035/2022
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale KC
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs J. Clewlow, Mr S. Townsend
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S. Gangadeen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent had conceded disability in respect of psoriatic arthritis, stress/depression and long Covid, except that knowledge of long Covid remained in issue. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of long Covid from 22 November 2021, or alternatively by receipt of the GP note of 23 December 2021 and/or occupational health report dated 4 January 2022.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent applied a PCP requiring the Claimant to attend the workplace between 22 November 2021 and 18 February 2022, initially five days per week and then four days per week from 14 January 2022. That PCP placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of her disabilities, including increased risk of illness, fatigue, further sickness absence and attendance sanctions. Allowing two days per week working from home was found to be a reasonable adjustment, particularly as the Claimant had previously worked that pattern and the Respondent did not evidence an operational reason why it could not continue. Full-time home working and disability leave were not found to be reasonable adjustments in the circumstances.
For the section 15 claim, the Tribunal found that requiring the Claimant to attend the informal attendance review meeting on 3 February 2022 and the formal attendance review meeting on 18 February 2022 was unfavourable treatment. The meetings arose from the Claimant's absence, which was connected to the Respondent's refusal to allow home working in line with medical advice. Although the Respondent's aims of managing absence, maintaining service resilience and considering wellbeing were potentially legitimate, continuing the attendance management process instead of making the two-day home working adjustment was not found to be proportionate.
The only remedy claimed was injury to feelings. The Tribunal awarded £11,000, placing the case at the lower end of the middle Vento band, and awarded £2,567.40 interest, making a total award of £13,567.40.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in respect of refusing to allow the Claimant to work from home for two days per week between 22 November 2021 and 18 February 2022. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments failed in respect of refusing to allow the Claimant to work from home for five days per week and/or to place her on disability leave. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,567
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- section 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 20 Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Ahmed v DWP
- Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Gardner
- Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services
- South Staffordshire & Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Komeng v Creative Support Ltd
- Vento guidelines
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.