Case 2302233/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Charlene Friend v MHS Homes Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302233/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Members
- Panel members
- Mr G Anderson, Mr D Newlyn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Charlene Friend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Respondent accepted the Claimant was disabled by dissociative seizures and later conceded that PTSD, anxiety, traumatic brain injury and fibromyalgia formed part of her disability. It dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaint, but upheld discrimination arising from disability in most of the pleaded respects, including matters connected with performance management, occupational health recommendations and the Claimant's working arrangements.
The Tribunal upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. It found that reasonable steps included altering workload, changing the Claimant's team leader, not instigating capability procedures before implementing occupational health recommendations, implementing recommendations on seating, workload, training and risk assessment, and tailoring training to the Claimant's needs. It also upheld harassment related to disability, including name-calling, an overheard loudspeaker conversation about performance, comments about wasted time, and a threat to give the Claimant's home address to a client.
The unauthorised deductions claim about bonuses was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant had received what was contractually properly payable. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed: the Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability on health grounds, and that the Respondent reasonably investigated, consulted, considered medical evidence and concluded there was no foreseeable return to work.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was upheld in respect of paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.6, and dismissed in respect of paragraph 4.1.5. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, concerning bonuses in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, was found not well-founded and dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice paragraph 7.18
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.