In person For the v Ms A Smith — 2025

Ms E Wilson worked as a project worker at the respondent's Newhaven Foyer from 16 November 2022. The tribunal found that she had long-standing mental health difficulties and that, by around 20 January 2023, the respondent knew she had serious and long-term mental health issues. The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was withdrawn during the hearing.

The claim under sections 44 and 48 ERA 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under sections 94, 98 and 100 ERA 1996 both arose from the claimant leaving work on 26 April 2023 after an altercation with colleague Binta Mass. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was distressed and that she subjectively felt at risk, but found that the incident was a workplace disagreement and did not amount to serious and imminent danger. It also found that dismissal was not for taking protected steps in danger, but because the respondent considered her unreliable during probation and concerned about staffing and safety if she left shift again.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of significant and long-term mental illness and that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that she was disabled. Direct and indirect discrimination failed because the tribunal did not find less favourable treatment or a substantial disadvantage made out on the evidence. The respondent's sickness reporting requirement was applied strictly, but the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that she could not comply with it, and that the respondent would have treated others the same way.

The discrimination arising from disability claim was treated differently in part: the tribunal found that the claimant's absences on 15 February and 26 April 2023 arose from her disability, and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of that. However, it held that the respondent had a legitimate aim of maintaining safe staffing levels and safeguarding residents, and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal noted that an extension of probation had been considered but was unlikely to remove the respondent's concern that she might leave shift again.

The harassment claim failed. The tribunal accepted that Ms Binta Mass likely used a slow, mocking voice on 11 and 26 April 2023, but found that this was not related to the claimant's disability because the same manner of speaking was also used to others. It also found that Ms Hoskins' references to the claimant's ability to manage her emotions were related to disability but were not conduct that reasonably had the effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The victimisation claim failed because the email of 4 May 2023 did not amount to a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010.