Case 3201152/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Sadie Stuart v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201152/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr L O'Callaghan, Mr P Quinn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Sadie Stuart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Stuart had autism spectrum disorder and worked as a Ward Assistant on acute wards. The tribunal accepted that she struggled with autonomous working, prioritising tasks that arose without warning, and multitasking. It also found that the respondent handled several matters poorly, including the initial occupational health response to her disclosure and the absence of briefing for colleagues about how her autism affected her work, but those failings did not change the central issue that the role required adaptability and initiative.
The tribunal found that the respondent made extensive efforts to support her: her initial supernumerary period was extended, she had occupational health involvement, weekly action plans, mentoring across Saunders Ward, Lister Ward and Tye Green Ward, and use of a notebook to record tasks. It also found that a Band 2 domestic role was offered on the same pay and status, but Ms Stuart did not want that change. The tribunal held that further adjustments such as a permanent or part-time mentor, or extending probation again, would not be reasonable because they would amount to someone else doing the core work of the post.
On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from something consequent on disability, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims of patient safety and efficient ward management. It therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claims in full. The tribunal did not need to decide the time-limit issue, though it noted that events before March 2019 would in any event be out of time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the respondent had already made as many adjustments as were reasonable, and that further steps such as a permanent mentor or longer probation would not be reasonable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim; the tribunal accepted the dismissal was because of something arising in consequence of disability, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hull City Council v Matuszowicz 2009 ICR 1170
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) [2003] IRLR 102
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.