Claimant v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal first determined that the claimant was a worker when carrying out work for D, so it had jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010 and s13 ERA 1996. It dismissed unfair dismissal because the claimant accepted that she did not have two years' qualifying service. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's separate loan-repayment issue was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had carried out work for D between 1 November and 7 December 2021, that the agreed rates were £19.50 per hour and £39.00 for work required within 24 hours, and that the invoice sent on 7 December 2021 was a true record of the work done. It found the invoiced sum of £497.71 gross remained unpaid and was owed forthwith.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had long-term conditions, including fibromyalgia, depression and anxiety, which substantially affected her day to day activities. It found that D knew of her disability-related conditions, that she was required to be available seven days a week, and that it would have been reasonable to allow her two clear days off each week. It therefore upheld the reasonable-adjustments claim, the s15 claim based on the warning that her personal-assistant role would be given to someone else if she could not work seven days a week, and the harassment claim arising from the 8 December 2021 WhatsApp comments. The tribunal found those comments related to the claimant's mental health, were offensive, and were made in a work group closely connected to the employment relationship. Remedy for the discrimination claims was left to a separate hearing, and the tribunal did not make a separate finding of direct discrimination under s13 because it had already found harassment.