In person For the v Respondent — 2022

At the closed telephone preliminary hearing, the tribunal accepted that the ET1 was against Jean Fox trading as Café 24. The unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service, and the judge recorded that she accepted that point.

The remaining claim was disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant said she had fibromyalgia, that emails during a holiday worsened her condition, and that she could not return to work because her doctor had issued a sick note and prescribed morphine. The respondent's response denied knowledge of fibromyalgia and said the dismissal was because the claimant did not return from holiday and had bullied two new employees. The judge said that, if the claimant's account were accepted and fibromyalgia was found to be a disability, the dismissal could amount to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.

The tribunal noted that disability would have to be proved under section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 and discussed the claimant's later PIP and DLA awards, medical notes, occupational therapy evidence, and an impact statement for loss and injury to feelings. Because the respondent did not attend, the judge made an unless order requiring an explanation, stayed some existing directions, and listed a further telephone case management hearing for 4 May 2022; the judge also noted that the case was suitable for judicial mediation.