Case 2418025/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Ellis v Stockport Homes Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418025/2018
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mr P Dobson, Mr J Ostrowski
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Ellis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Ellis brought claims against Stockport Homes Limited including deductions from wages, disability discrimination, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. At the outset of the judgment, the tribunal recorded that the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint and the disability discrimination complaint about unlawful deductions from wages were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider several disability discrimination complaints because they were presented out of time. Those out-of-time matters included allegations of harassment during sickness absence, the first and second stage warnings, an alleged pre-determination of dismissal and discussion of dismissal in the office, the stage 3 sickness interview, and reasonable adjustments complaints about set hours, hot desking, use of a phone without a headset, and driving.
On the merits, the tribunal rejected the disability discrimination complaint that the respondent breached the sickness/absence procedure by failing to offer a non-competitive interview for another role and by failing to agree how best contact would be maintained. It also rejected the complaint that the claimant was dismissed on 29 August 2018 for saying she was going to Malta to run a bar. The reasonable adjustments complaint about the sickness absence procedure and attendance at review meetings succeeded only in part: it was well founded to the extent that, for the claimant's mental impairment, the respondent required her between May 2018 and 29 August 2018 to attend a stage 3 meeting, but the remainder was not well founded.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, and stated that remedy for the successful complaints would be determined at a later hearing on 17 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination complaint about unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Out-of-time disability discrimination complaints about harassment during sickness absence, the 29 January 2018 first stage warning, the 9 April 2018 second stage warning, alleged pre-determination/open discussion of dismissal, and the 19 July 2018 stage 3 sickness interview were not considered. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Out-of-time reasonable adjustments complaints about a set number of hours, hot desking, use of a phone without a headset, and driving were not considered. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint that the respondent breached the sickness/absence procedure by failing to offer a non-competitive interview for another role and by failing to agree how best contact could be maintained was not well founded. | Dismissed |
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.