Case 3201413/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Dube v The Centre for Health & Disability Assessment Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201413/2018
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr T Burrows, Mrs G Everett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Dube
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Dube was accepted to be disabled by depression and anxiety. The tribunal found that in March 2017, after a significant error on a terminally ill case, she was rostered for face-to-face assessments for the week commencing 3 April 2017. It held that this removed the adjustments previously in place, placed her at a substantial disadvantage, and that the Respondent knew from the 16 March 2017 occupational health report that increased face-to-face work worsened her anxiety and that her work pattern should remain mainly file-based.
The tribunal rejected the Respondent's reliance on the significant events policy and its case that there was no file work available. It found that a reasonable adjustment would have been to maintain the March 2017 level of face-to-face work. Time was extended under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 because the claim was presented about 12 months late, but the tribunal took into account the Claimant's ill health, her informal grievance activity, and the limited forensic prejudice to the Respondent. The reasonable-adjustments claim succeeded only for April 2017; later Equality Act complaints, including the December 2017 return-to-work period, were dismissed because she was not in fact required to do face-to-face work then and a supportive return plan was being arranged.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the March/April 2017 change in duties could amount to a serious breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that the grievance-related delay was capable of contributing to a final straw. However, it held that Miss Dube affirmed the contract by returning to work on 1 December 2017, engaging with the return-to-work process, receiving pay and sick pay, seeking PHI support, and not reserving her position. When she resigned on 1 January 2018, she could no longer rely on constructive dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment was liability only and remedy was deferred to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive dismissal case failed because the tribunal held that Miss Dube affirmed the contract after the April 2017 events and before resigning on 1 January 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Succeeded only in respect of the April 2017 reasonable-adjustments complaint: the tribunal found the Respondent should have maintained the earlier file-work/limited face-to-face arrangement. All other Equality Act allegations were dismissed, and remedy was left to a separate hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd and Sharpe
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Omilaju final straw
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.98(4) 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.