Mrs M Sisson v Nottinghamshire County Council and 1 other — 2024

The liability judgment found three claims well founded: unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, disability discrimination for something arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, and the claimant's second reasonable-adjustment claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The dismissal followed safeguarding allegations concerning Child X on 31 January 2020 and 3 February 2020, suspension on 4 February 2020, and dismissal for alleged gross misconduct on 25 January 2021.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was misconduct, but found serious flaws in the investigation and disciplinary process. In particular, the respondent had not obtained medical evidence from occupational health or the claimant's psychiatrist to understand whether her mental health caused or contributed to the conduct, and the disciplinary panel did not apply its mind to the possible link with her mental health. The tribunal concluded that the gross misconduct dismissal and the procedure followed were outside the band of reasonable responses.

For the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's decision-making with Child X was impaired because of her disability, and that dismissal was based on two alleged offences including the 31 January conduct that arose in consequence of disability. For the reasonable-adjustment claim, the tribunal found that applying the disciplinary procedure from suspension to appeal was a PCP and caused stress and anxiety. It held that the respondents should, from 20 April 2020, have made reasonable enquiries, taken account of the possible effect of illness on decision-making, carried out a risk assessment, and potentially used capability proceedings or removed the gross misconduct charge, at least for the 31 January incident.

At remedy, the tribunal made no contributory fault reduction. It found no realistic prospect of a fair and non-discriminatory dismissal before 8 February 2021, but applied a 60% reduction to financial loss after that date to reflect the chance of a fair and non-discriminatory ill-health capability dismissal later. It awarded salary loss of £21,739 net after benefit credit and reduction, pension loss of £8,432 net, £500 for loss of statutory rights, and a £5,216.27 basic award.

For non-pecuniary loss, the tribunal treated suspension as a non-tortious act but found that the later failure to make adjustments exacerbated and prolonged psychiatric harm within the Moderate Judicial College Guidelines range. It awarded £16,120 for the period from 20 April 2020 to dismissal, £21,825 for the psychiatric impact of the discriminatory dismissal, and £13,500 for the later relapse linked to the litigation after applying a 25% reduction for other factors. It also awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings for the immediate shock, humiliation and hurt of dismissal for gross misconduct.