Case 2504232/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Luker v South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2504232/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Members
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- David Dorman-Smith, Stephen Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Luker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a band 6 senior registered nurse in radiology who developed chronic urticaria in January 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent applied a PCP requiring her to wear protective lead while radiation-producing procedures were in progress, and that this placed her at a substantial disadvantage because the heavier apron exacerbated her skin condition and the heat and pressure affected her symptoms. Occupational health and dermatology advice identified possible adjustments, including lighter lead aprons and amended duties.
At the 11 July 2019 meeting the claimant proposed four adjustments: lighter lead aprons, rotation of some radiology duties with cardiology nurses, permission to monitor patients from behind the fixed lead screen while radiation was being emitted, and a reduction in the temperature in room 5. The tribunal found that the respondent took a fixed view that behind-screen monitoring would reduce the level of nursing care and did not trial the proposals or meaningfully investigate rotating duties. It also found that the respondent had only monitored the room temperature and made limited estates changes, without evidence of the cost or feasibility of more substantial temperature control.
Applying the reasonable-adjustments authorities it cited, the tribunal held that it would have been reasonable to trial lighter lead aprons, allow the claimant to monitor from behind the screen, rotate some duties, and address the room temperature, at least by mid to late July 2019. It rejected the respondent's case that a zero-gravity radiation protection system was a reasonable adjustment on the evidence before it, given the cost, logistics, and the short remaining period before the claimant left work. The complaint under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The separate complaint of discrimination arising from disability was withdrawn at the hearing and recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal directed a separate remedy hearing for financial loss and injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal directed a separate remedy hearing; no award was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. It was withdrawn at the hearing and the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Department for Work and Pensions v Alam
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters
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.