Ms D Richardson v The Belstead Group Limited and 1 other — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 14 February 2019, Employment Judge Burgher had already found that Ms Richardson was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of anxiety and depression between November 2017 and 22 February 2018. In this final hearing, the tribunal accepted her withdrawal of proceedings against Mr Peter Adams, rejected her recusal application under the Porter v Magill objective bystander test, and later refused her costs application for the February 2019 hearing.

On the disability claims, the tribunal found that Ms Richardson did not tell either Ms Cindy Burt or Ms Joanne Burdon that she suffered from stress, anxiety or depression, and that the recruitment paperwork and interview answers were inconsistent with her later account. It accepted that the absences relied on by the respondents in late January and February 2018 were flu and stomach illness absences, not absences arising from the disability. The tribunal found that Ms Burdon dismissed Ms Richardson during her probation because of her high attendance record and her lack of reassurance about future attendance, with the efficient running of the special school as the legitimate aim. It also found that the claimant was not warned that the 22 February 2018 meeting might lead to dismissal, so the initial dismissal process was procedurally flawed, but the appeal rehearing cured that defect. As the tribunal found no causal link between the dismissal and the disability, and no knowledge or constructive knowledge of disability on the respondents' part, the s15 EqA claim was dismissed.

On the dependent-leave claim, the tribunal accepted that Ms Richardson was a dependent and that her absence on 18 January 2018 to attend her son's case conference was qualifying time off under s57A ERA. It also found that the school had incorrectly counted 2 January 2018 annual leave and the 18 January dependent leave in its attendance history. Even so, the tribunal held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was not that dependent leave, but the claimant's overall sickness and other absence during the first weeks of employment. The automatic unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The claimant's costs application, which was put at about £40 for travel expenses, was refused because the respondents' conduct in disputing disability status and cross-examining her did not meet the Rule 76 threshold.