Ms N. Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd Heard by: London South Heard — 2021

Ms N. Bodis worked for Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd from 1 July 2008 and became activities coordinator on 1 December 2009. The tribunal accepted that she was a disabled person with anxiety and depression, and that the respondent had known about her mental health since at least 2015, including during a GP referral in 2017, a phased return to work, and later support meetings. It rejected the claimant's case that Mrs Craen wanted her dismissed because of her health, and found the respondent's records showed support rather than hostility.

From late 2018 a series of unusual incidents at Compton House led to an investigation by Mr Nurse. The tribunal found he reviewed the incident log, staff attendance records and handwriting samples, considered whether there might be more than one perpetrator, and did not approach the matter with a closed mind. It accepted that the claimant was present during the relevant windows of opportunity and that the disciplinary panel made its own assessment, finding some allegations proven and others not proven.

The unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed. Applying s.98(1), s.98(2) and s.98(4) ERA 1996, Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods and Sainsbury's v Hitt, the tribunal held that conduct was the reason for dismissal, that the investigation was reasonable, and that summary dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the band of reasonable responses. It also found that the respondent proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant committed the misconduct found proven, so the wrongful dismissal claim failed.

The tribunal upheld the reasonable-adjustments claim only in part. It found that the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by being required to attend the 25 February 2019 investigative meeting without advance written notice of the matters to be discussed and without being told she could be accompanied, and that the respondent knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage. The remaining reasonable-adjustments allegations, including postponement pending medical advice, handling of correspondence, and giving more time to recover, were dismissed.

The discrimination arising from disability claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's brief, distracted and sometimes laughing answers at the investigative meeting arose in consequence of her disability, but found that that demeanour played only a trivial part in the referral to discipline and no significant part in the dismissal decision. It also held, in the alternative, that maintaining disciplinary standards was a legitimate aim and that the disciplinary process and dismissal were proportionate means of achieving it.

The direct race and disability discrimination claims, and the alternative harassment claims, were dismissed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments on 27 February 2019 or 1 March 2019 were made, so the claimant did not prove the primary facts needed for those complaints. It also rejected the contention that the 29 March 2019 dismissal was because of race or disability, finding that it followed the misconduct findings. The hearing was on liability only, so no monetary remedy was determined.