Case 2303019/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sarah Forsyth, Employment Case Worker For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2303019/2018
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Date
- Panel members
- Ms S Lansley, Mr P Mills
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Sarah Forsyth, Employment Case Worker For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked as a cashier at a BP franchise garage from 2005 and, by the time the first respondent took over the franchise on 9 January 2018, she was working part-time shifts and was the sole carer for her mother. The tribunal accepted that her back condition, scoliosis, was a disability at the material time and that her mother was disabled, but it was not satisfied that the claimant's glaucoma met the statutory test for disability.
The disability claims arose after the respondent required the claimant to take a health and safety refresher assessment on 5 February 2018. The tribunal found that requirement reasonable because the respondent had recently taken over the franchise and had a legal obligation to ensure staff were properly trained, and it noted that other employees were also asked to take the test. It did not accept that the claimant was treated less favourably because of disability, or that she was told she could not retake the test or that she would be required to work outside her agreed shift pattern. The complaints under sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 were therefore not well founded.
The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to pay statutory sick pay was a fundamental breach of contract. It accepted that a document denying SSP was created in early March 2018 and not given to the claimant, and it found that the claimant's average earnings over the relevant period exceeded the SSP threshold. It also held that the failure to respond in writing to her requests for information, taken with the non-payment of sick pay, was repudiatory conduct. On that basis, the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was well founded.
The victimisation complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on that basis. All claims against the second respondent were dismissed. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £7,500 in respect of the proceedings, payable in four instalments of £1,875, but the judgment did not allocate that sum between the successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that non-payment of statutory sick pay, despite the claimant's average earnings exceeding the SSP threshold, together with the respondent's failure to respond in writing to her requests for information, amounted to repudiatory conduct. It held that these matters entitled her to resign on 4 April 2018. The judgment records a global consent payment of £7,500 for the proceedings and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on that basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 was rejected. The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to take the health and safety test was reasonable, that other employees were also required to take it, and that it did not accept she was treated less favourably because of her own disability or her mother's disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 was rejected. The tribunal found no unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability in the test, retraining and alternative duties discussions, and it did not accept that the claimant was required to work outside her agreed shift pattern. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant's average earnings over the relevant period exceeded the statutory sick pay threshold and that the respondent failed to pay SSP for a substantial period. The judgment does not split the global £7,500 consent payment between the successful claims. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 deduced effect principle
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- fundamental breach of contract
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.