Case 2502489/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Normand v Whitbread Group plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502489/2019
- Decision date
- 10 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey
- Panel members
- Mr Stead, Mrs Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Normand
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted that the claimant was disabled by degenerative disc disease, prolapsed spinal discs, arthritis of the spine, cervical spondylosis and sciatica. The tribunal found that after adjustments were made following occupational health advice, some co-workers resented those adjustments and subjected the claimant to name-calling, comments, critique and related conduct. It held that some of this amounted to discrimination arising from disability and harassment, but that this conduct ended in December 2018 and was out of time.
The tribunal rejected several alleged March 2019 acts as disability discrimination or harassment, including allegations about training on the booking system, comments about standing or sitting, scrutiny by managers, and the brief suspension. It accepted Julie Reeves' evidence that the claimant's disability had no bearing on the decision to send her home, and held that the victimisation claim failed on causation.
The only in-time successful complaint was the reasonable adjustment claim concerning 15 March 2019, when the claimant was required to pick up cigarette butts outside the hotel. The tribunal found that this PCP placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of difficulties with bending, lifting and twisting, and that not requiring her to do that task was a reasonable adjustment which the respondent failed to make. It awarded £1,200 for injury to feelings plus £181 interest.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability: the tribunal found some earlier unfavourable treatment connected with resentment over reasonable adjustments, but held that the conduct ended in December 2018, was out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that some earlier conduct amounted to unwanted conduct related to disability and had the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, but the claim was out of time and no extension was granted. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 in respect of requiring the claimant to pick up cigarette butts on 15 March 2019 was well founded. | Upheld | Disability | £1,200 |
| Disability discrimination | Other reasonable adjustment complaints were dismissed: the bed-making adjustments were made and not withdrawn; no PCP requiring consecutive shifts was applied, or any adjustment was made; and the chair allegation either was not established as pleaded or was out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant did a protected act by alleging discrimination, but the tribunal found she was not suspended because of it; the reason for sending her home was to allow matters to cool down after the discussion became heated. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,381
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Haslam
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Aziz v FDA
- Greco v General Physics UK Ltd
- Lyfar v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust v King
- Lyfar-Cisse v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Veolia Environmental Services UK v Gumbs
- Southern Cross Healthcare v Owolabi
- Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson
- Olufunso Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.