Case 2406050/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Deborah White v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406050/2022
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs Gilchrist, Mrs Berkeley-Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Deborah White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Advanced Social Work Practitioner with severe sight loss, relied on assistive software to carry out her duties. The respondent accepted that the lack of the Access to Work recommended auxiliary aids and training placed her at a substantial disadvantage and that it knew of that disadvantage from December 2020.
The Tribunal found that it would have been reasonable to provide Fusion software by the end of January 2021, Fusion training by 1 March 2021, and bespoke software by June 2021. It found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not providing Fusion software from January 2021 to August 2022, Fusion training from March 2021 to August 2022, and bespoke software from June 2021 to August 2022.
The Tribunal rejected the submission that sickness absence or the claimant's interest in ill-health retirement removed the respondent's duty to make reasonable adjustments. Remedy issues, including financial loss and injury to feelings, were left for a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint before the Tribunal was failure to make reasonable adjustments by providing auxiliary aids and training for severe sight loss. Remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that race discrimination complaints were withdrawn at a case management hearing. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 20(5) Equality Act 2010
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.