Case 2601778/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J E Horrobin v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601778/2017
- Decision date
- 29 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Members
- Venue
- Leicester Heard
- Panel members
- Mrs J M Morrish, Ms R Wills
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J E Horrobin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J E Horrobin, a Support Secretary at Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, brought disability discrimination complaints and a constructive unfair dismissal claim. Anxiety and depression were accepted as disabilities for the proceedings, but fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue syndrome were not. The tribunal extended time for the discrimination claims under the just and equitable discretion, noting that the complaints were largely documented and the respondent suffered little prejudice from delay.
The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The section 15 complaint failed because the written warning of 16 May 2016 was not linked to disability-related absence, and the resignation/dismissal complaint was not shown to be something arising in consequence of disability. The reasonable adjustments complaint also failed: the alleged requirement to work in a hostile environment was not a valid PCP imposed by the respondent, punctuality was not shown to arise from disability, and the suggested adjustments were either not requested or did not address a disability disadvantage.
The constructive dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that there had been a prolonged pattern of hostile and demeaning behaviour between the claimant, Mrs Warner and Ms Scott, supported by emails and by evidence from Ms Hunt and Ms MacMillan, and that management was largely reactive rather than investigatory. Applying the implied term of trust and confidence and the last straw authorities, including Western Excavating, Malik, Baldwin, Omilaju, Wright and Kaur, the tribunal found that the cumulative conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach and that the confrontation on 16 June 2017 was the final straw that caused the claimant to resign. Remedy was not determined because the issue of remedy was adjourned.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EA 2010: the written warning on 16 May 2016 was found not to be because of disability-related absence, and the resignation was not treated as something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20 and 21 EA 2010: the alleged PCP of a hostile environment was not a valid PCP imposed by the respondent, and punctuality was not shown to be linked to the claimant's disability; the suggested adjustments were not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal: the tribunal found cumulative bullying and inadequate management response, with the 16 June 2017 confrontation acting as the final straw and a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 EA 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.15 EA 2010 discrimination arising from disability
- s.20 EA 2010 reasonable adjustments
- s.21 EA 2010 failure to comply with reasonable adjustments
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI implied term of trust and confidence
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages last straw doctrine
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
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.