Miss A Donaghey v Done Bros Cash Betting Ltd t/a Betfred — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant’s iron deficiency anaemia was a disability at the relevant time because, taking into account the ongoing ferrous sulphate medication, the impairment would have a substantial and long-term adverse effect without treatment. It did not find that depression was a disability, because the substantial adverse effect identified in the medical notes did not last for 12 months and there was no evidence of likely recurrence. The respondent was aware that the claimant had iron deficiency and was taking tablets for it.

Most of the pleaded direct discrimination allegations failed. The tribunal found no sufficient basis for concluding that the claimant was treated less favourably because of sex or disability in relation to the calls on days off, the April 2019 email about return-to-work notes, the budget-sheet query, the request to attend the Kendal meeting, the disciplinary process, the appraisal score, the regional meeting in Carlisle, holiday restrictions, welfare meetings, or the 22 November 2019 call. The sex discrimination claims failed for the same reason: the tribunal did not find evidence that the treatment complained of was because of sex.

On disability harassment, the tribunal rejected most of the allegations but accepted the claimant’s contemporaneous account of the 30 April 2019 meeting. It found that Mr Anderson referred to an off-the-record chat, the claimant’s health, her being "on something" for the previous two years, and comments about HR and Head Office, and that this created a hostile, offensive and intimidating environment. The tribunal found that this conduct was related to disability and also amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. It did not, however, find the other disability harassment allegations to be made out.

The disability harassment claim was nevertheless out of time. The tribunal held that the relevant act occurred on 30 April 2019, that the primary limitation date was 29 July 2019, and that the claim was not presented until 17 May 2020. It refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the 22 November 2019 telephone conversation was not a repudiatory breach, was not a final straw in a cumulative breach, and the claimant had already affirmed the contract by remaining in employment for almost seven months after the April 2019 events. The linked direct sex and disability discrimination claims based on constructive dismissal also failed.