Mrs Karen Ounsworth v 1) University of Nottingham 2) Ms N Anderton 3) Ms M Potts — 2023

The Claimant, Mrs Karen Ounsworth, was employed by the University of Nottingham and was dismissed with effect from 7 December 2020 following a redundancy process. The Respondents accepted that she was disabled by reason of fibromyalgia, but they did not accept that OCD or generalised anxiety disorder amounted to disabilities. The Tribunal found the medical evidence for OCD/GAD was sparse and relied in particular on the occupational health evidence from 23 April 2018, which did not support a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

The direct disability discrimination allegations against Ms Anderton and Ms Potts, and against the University, were rejected. The Tribunal found that the incidents complained of, including issues about written briefs, training, working from home, furlough, communications, and redundancy consultation, were either not proved, were reasonable management steps, or were not less favourable treatment because of disability. Where there was conflict in the evidence, the Tribunal preferred the Respondents' witnesses and contemporaneous documents. The Tribunal also found that the discrimination complaints were out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, although limitation was academic because the claims failed on their merits.

The victimisation claim also failed. The Tribunal found that the matters relied on as protected acts were not complaints under the Equality Act 2010, and that the allegations about the Respondents' later conduct were not linked to any protected act in any event. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the victimisation complaint and reached the same conclusion on limitation: the claims were out of time and no extension was justified.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the University was undergoing a 15% savings exercise, that the demand for printed materials had diminished, and that the pandemic had accelerated the move towards digital work. It found that the requirements for work of the kind carried out by the Claimant had diminished within s.139 ERA 1996, that a pool of one was reasonable, and that consultation and redeployment steps were sufficient. The decision to dismiss for redundancy was held to fall within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The holiday pay and unlawful deduction claims were dismissed because they were not particularised. There was no monetary award.