Case 3200684/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Tabone v AZ Trading Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200684/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Members
- Panel members
- Mr. M Wood, Mr. J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Tabone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Tabone worked as a bubbleologist for AZ Trading Limited from 17 December 2019 to 20 January 2020. The Tribunal found that she had Crohn's disease, which the Respondent accepted was a disability, and that she also had Leri Weill dyschondrosteosis. At interview she volunteered information about her conditions and previous sickness, was offered a trial shift on 5 December 2019, and after a successful trial shift was employed on a six-month probationary basis at GBP 7.70 per hour.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses on the material disputes. It found that the Claimant was not criticised for toilet breaks, was not asked to work at tasks she had not been trained to do, and had not asked for reasonable adjustments; on her own evidence, her disability did not affect her ability to perform the role. The Tribunal also found that the allegations that Mr Mehmood said the company had told him not to employ anyone with health issues, or that she was dismissed in front of staff and customers, were not made out.
The dismissal was found to have been for poor performance during probation. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had fallen behind with orders, mishandled a loyalty card, refused reasonable management instructions on 12 January and 19 January 2020, and made errors on 15 January when asked to prepare drinks and waffles. On that basis it dismissed the claims for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination under section 13 EA 2010 in relation to dismissal; the Tribunal found no facts from which discrimination could be inferred and accepted poor performance as the reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EA 2010 in relation to dismissal; the Tribunal found the dismissal was not because of something arising in consequence of disability and was justified by performance concerns. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 EA 2010; the Tribunal found no provision, criterion or practice placing the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage and noted she had not asked for adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under section 26 EA 2010; the Tribunal rejected the allegations about criticism of toilet breaks, the alleged comment about health issues, and the manner of dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Bahl v The Law Society
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Hardys and Hansens plc v Lax
- Nottingham City Transport Ltd v Harvey
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- R(EOC) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
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.