Miss A Barugh v North East Care Homes Limited — 2020

The claimant, Miss A Barugh, brought a disability discrimination complaint against North East Care Homes Limited. The respondent accepted that she was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal identified the central issues as whether the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability, whether dismissal was unfavourable treatment, and whether the dismissal was because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely disability-related absence.

The tribunal found that the respondent should reasonably have known of the claimant's disability by early February 2019. It accepted that Mrs Nattrass saw the claimant's wrist support, was aware of the injury and surgery, observed the arm and pain relief, decided the claimant should not do hoist training, and was told enough to prompt further enquiry. The tribunal said that if reasonable enquiries had been made, the respondent would have known the claimant was disabled.

The claim still failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the dismissal was because of disability-related absence. It found that Mr Gibson dismissed the claimant for absences from 30 April to 9 May 2019 and that those absences were for sickness and dizziness, not for the claimant's disability. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she was not required to work on 1 and 2 April and found that she did work on 5 April, so the earlier alleged April absences did not support the dismissal reason relied on by the respondent.

The tribunal concluded that, although the respondent should have known the claimant was disabled, the dismissing manager was concerned with attendance after she had started work and did not rely on disability-related absence. The complaint of disability discrimination was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.