Mr N Bidnell-Edwards, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 27 February 2020 before Employment Judge Victoria Butler sitting alone at Leicester, the Respondent accepted that the Claimant was disabled because of vasovagal syncope. The Tribunal granted the application to amend in part so that complaints of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability could be pursued in relation to alleged failures about how staff dealt with her when she fell unconscious, the response of Ms Simpson and others, the PEEP, the fire marshal, and disability-related communication and training. It refused the other proposed amendments, including the implied trust and confidence resignation allegation and the separate allegation about a confidential document sent to the Claimant's mother.

Applying Rule 37 and the approach in Balls v Downham Market High School and College, the Tribunal refused strike out because it could not say with absolute confidence that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It nevertheless considered that the allegations overall had little reasonable prospects of success. The documentary material appeared to support the Respondent's case that a PEEP had been agreed with the Claimant, that a buddy system and risk assessment were in place, and that the wider team had been informed about her disability and how to respond if she fainted.

The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's point that the Claimant was aware Graham Todd was the fire marshal, referring to an email of 17 October 2018, and said the later assertion that there was no fire marshal was not credible on the papers. It also noted difficulty with the comparator relied on for direct discrimination and with the pleaded discrimination arising from disability formulation, because the words used appeared to concern the disability itself rather than something arising from it. Because of those concerns, and having regard to the Claimant's income of £1,712 per month and outgoings of about £1,500 per month, the Tribunal made a £300 deposit order as a condition of continuing the case. No substantive liability decision or remedy award was made at this stage.