Miss Carol Smith v Amalgamated Euro Products UK Ltd — 2019

At the outset, the tribunal held that the remaining sex and disability discrimination and harassment complaints were out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and refused a just and equitable extension, although it still made alternative findings where those allegations were relevant to the dismissal issue. The holiday pay complaint was recorded as settled at the hearing.

On disability, the tribunal found that Miss Smith had Hepatitis C, had attended repeated hospital appointments in 2016, and had told Mr Mirzaee that she had a chronic liver condition and was suffering from exhaustion. It held that the respondent ought reasonably to have known of her disability and that withdrawing the Friday home-working arrangement in January 2017, without properly exploring alternatives, was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. That complaint was nevertheless out of time.

On the sex allegations, the tribunal considered incidents including the 'bitches' remarks, 'pussycat', 'ready to screw', the 'long legs' comment, the extra half-hour working arrangement, the sales-leads dispute, and the 7 February 2017 meeting. It held that the direct sex discrimination and sex harassment complaints were out of time; on alternative findings, some allegations would have succeeded and others would not, but the operative ruling was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.

The dismissal was the central live issue. Although the respondent relied on redundancy and financial pressure, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant was solely responsible for the Figurite brand, noted the absence of consultation, selection criteria, alternative employment discussion and any appeal, and was not persuaded by the redundancy explanation. It also took account of the withdrawn home-working arrangement, the pay dispute and the 7 February 2017 meeting. Taking the evidence as a whole, and preferring the claimant's evidence where it conflicted with Mr Mirzaee's, it held that the dismissal was an act of unlawful discrimination on grounds of disability and that the unfair dismissal complaint also succeeded.

The tribunal also found that there was an agreement to increase the claimant's salary from £26,000 to £30,000 per annum and held that she was entitled to damages for breach of contract in respect of the £4,000 increase, with quantum left to be determined at a later remedy hearing. No monetary award was fixed in this judgment.