Ms S Ford v Lucksbridge Horticulture Limited — 2024

Ms S Ford suffered from bile acid malabsorption (BAM), which had been formally diagnosed in May 2021. She started work for Lucksbridge Horticulture Limited on 11 April 2022 and disclosed BAM on her new starter form. The tribunal found the respondent knew of the condition before employment began, including that she might need more frequent toilet breaks, and later moved her to work in despatch because it was nearer to the toilets. It found BAM had lasted at least 12 months by the dismissal date and had a substantial adverse effect on her normal day-to-day activities, particularly mobility and the need to remain near toilet facilities, so she was disabled for section 6 Equality Act 2010 purposes.

The claimant withdrew her direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 during the hearing, and the tribunal recorded that claim as dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claim was discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The respondent did not rely on a justification defence. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal decision was made because management considered the claimant's performance and speed while working to be below the standard required during probation, and it accepted Simon Ball's evidence that the reference to "health issues" in the dismissal letter was not the reason for dismissal but an indication that those issues were being discounted.

The tribunal found the claimant's sickness absence in June 2022 was due to an ankle injury and was unrelated to BAM. It also found there was no evidence that her speed of work was adversely affected by the need to use the toilet, and that the respondent was concerned with the speed and quality of the work itself rather than the time she spent away from the task. For those reasons the claimant failed to prove that any matter relied on as arising from disability did so arise, and the section 15 claim was dismissed. No monetary award was made.