Miss A Hague v Paul Sanders and 1 other — 2021

At a private preliminary hearing on 9 December 2020, after the claimant accepted she did not have two years' continuous service, the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The final hearing therefore concerned the claimant's unlawful disability discrimination allegations against Mr Sanders and Kelly Park Limited.

The respondents conceded that the claimant had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, namely a back injury sustained in May 2013. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account of the 31 July 2020 car park exchange, but found Mr Sanders did not know who she was or that she was disabled and approached her because she was shown as absent through illness while attending training. His conduct was not related to disability and did not amount to harassment.

The tribunal found the computer app access ended automatically when the claimant's sickness certificate expired, not because of her disability or grievance. It rejected the claimant's case that she was told to withdraw her complaint or apologise as a condition of returning to work, found there was no formal agreement for reasonable adjustments, and held that the late-shift requirement flowed from the availability she had given at the start of employment rather than from disability. Although the claimant's 3 August email could amount to a protected act, the tribunal found no proof that the response about shifts was because of that complaint.

The tribunal also rejected indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation. It found the claimant did not prove that any late-shift requirement caused a substantial disadvantage linked to disability, that she had not actually been required to work late shifts before resigning, and that the principal reason for her resignation was her plan to take a pre-booked holiday to Turkey rather than any alleged fundamental breach by the respondents. The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed.