Case 2503568/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Cullen v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503568/2018
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne
- Panel members
- Mr M Brain, Mr KA Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Cullen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Cullen, a helpline adviser at ACAS, brought disability discrimination and victimisation claims arising from the way her performance in call handling was managed. ACAS accepted that she was disabled by reason of dyslexia. The claimant’s reasonable adjustments case was based on the requirement that Newcastle hub advisers meet targets for call structure and call scoring. The tribunal accepted that this was a PCP applied to the claimant, but found that it did not put her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled colleagues. It accepted that dyslexia can affect people differently and referred to the claimant’s earlier psychological assessment, but held on the evidence that her difficulties at work were not shown to stem from an inability to follow the call structure because of dyslexia, and were not shown to make her more likely to fail calls for the reasons identified by management.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim concerned failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 in relation to call-structure and call-scoring targets. The tribunal found the PCP did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled persons, so no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant relied on protected acts said to have occurred on 6 October 2017 and in the Yammer post on 23 October 2017. The tribunal held that none of the alleged detriments were imposed because of those protected acts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Carranza v General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- De Souza v Automobile Association
- St Helen's Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire
- Igen Ltd v Wong
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.