Case 2405457/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss PE Hyde v The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405457/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr J Ostrowski, Ms E Cadbury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss PE Hyde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by depression and anxiety throughout the material period. It found that although she did not tell her line manager about the disability, she had declared a mental health condition on a new starter form returned to HR, which fixed the respondent with knowledge of the disability from 1 February 2019 and imputed that knowledge to the line manager.
The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a PCP requiring the claimant to undertake and cope with the usual rigours of her band 6 role, and that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage. However, it found that the respondent had made all reasonable adjustments, including support from her manager and junior colleagues, temporary limitation of some duties, and arrangements around the TWW team, the band 7 vacancy, the MDT room, home working, and annual leave.
The section 15 claim succeeded in relation to the decision to end the claimant's fixed-term contract early. The Tribunal did not accept that the respondent encouraged the substantive post-holder to return early from maternity leave, but found that the claimant's sickness absence arose from her disability and was a material and effective reason for the decision to terminate the contract in September 2019. The respondent did not advance a proportionality defence. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was well-founded. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Any other disability discrimination claim, including direct discrimination references in earlier pleadings, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons record that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out at a public preliminary hearing because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service as required by section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v The Patent Office
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs
- Urso v DWP
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Alam
- Lincolnshire Police v Weaver
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme v Williams
- General Dynamics v Carranza
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 108(1) 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.
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.