Case 2304184/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Devaney v Porthaven Care Homes No 2 Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304184/2020
- Decision date
- 15 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker
- Panel members
- Mr S Khan, Ms E Rousou
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Devaney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs P Devaney brought a disability discrimination claim alleging that Porthaven Care Homes No 2 Limited failed to make reasonable adjustments when she was shielding during the first phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. The respondent accepted that she was disabled by Crohn's disease. The tribunal found that she was clinically extremely vulnerable, not merely in an 'at risk' category, and that the NHS letters of 21 March 2020 and April 2020 instructed her to stay at home and avoid face-to-face contact.
The tribunal found that the respondent operated a PCP from 18 March 2020 under which care staff were paid full wages only if they attended work in person, and otherwise only the equivalent of statutory sick pay. Applying that policy to the claimant meant that she faced a choice between ignoring NHS shielding advice and attending work, or remaining at home and receiving only SSP. The tribunal found that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage, particularly because she repeatedly provided the NHS letters explaining her position.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's approach of treating the claimant as comparable to other 'at risk' staff and rejected the suggestion that the NHS advice was only a suggestion or that the claimant was choosing not to attend work. It found that working from home was not possible, but that it would have been a reasonable adjustment to place the claimant on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and pay her 80% of salary while shielding. The tribunal distinguished O'Hanlon v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs and treated the CJRS as a time-limited, effective adjustment in the unique circumstances of the pandemic.
The claim was therefore upheld. No final compensation figure was set in this judgment; instead, the tribunal invited the parties to try alternative dispute resolution and indicated that any compensation hearing would need to take account of a deduction for 84 hours of holiday paid at the claimant's full rate of £924 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Remedy was not finally assessed in this judgment; the parties were encouraged to resolve compensation by ADR, with any hearing to determine compensation subject to a deduction for 84 hours of holiday paid at full rate (£924 gross). | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- O'Hanlon v Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
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.