Case 2400633/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Fisher v Department for Work and Pensions — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400633/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Fisher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the Department for Work and Pensions as a Decision Maker and was dismissed on 28 October 2019. The tribunal treated the claim as unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996; although the claimant referred to constructive dismissal, she accepted that she had not resigned.
The tribunal found that the respondent proved the reason for dismissal was the claimant's sickness absence and poor prospects of reliable attendance, which related to capability. It found that the respondent followed a reasonable procedure, including staged attendance management, meetings, appeal opportunities, consultation efforts, and offers of Occupational Health, the Employee Assistance Programme and a stress reduction plan.
The tribunal concluded that by October 2019 it was reasonably open to the respondent to decide it could not wait any longer, given the claimant's pattern of absences, the impact of absence, and the lack of grounds for optimism that attendance would improve. The dismissal was therefore fair.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant used the phrase constructive dismissal, but the tribunal recorded that she had not resigned and treated the case as a complaint of unfair dismissal arising from actual dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.