Ms A Phillips v Ms M Pett — 2021

The tribunal found that Ms Phillips was disabled by reason of asthma and COPD, but it did not find that she had depression at the relevant time. It also found that Ms Pett knew, or ought to have known, about the asthma and its effects. The claim before the tribunal was one of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, based on allegations that Ms Pett pressurised Ms Phillips to attend work after sickness absence, failed to show concern for her welfare, raised sham disciplinary allegations, and dismissed her because of sickness absence related to disability.

On the allegation about being pressed to attend work after a day of sickness absence in December 2019, the tribunal found there was no evidence to support the allegation and that the January 2020 text messages showed Ms Phillips herself volunteered to make up time. On the allegation concerning 2 March 2020, the tribunal accepted that Ms Pett raised a work issue but found she stopped once Ms Phillips said she had been signed off for two weeks with exacerbation of asthma, and it did not find any treatment influenced by sickness absence. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that Ms Pett showed no concern for Ms Phillips’ welfare.

The tribunal accepted that the six disciplinary matters raised at the meeting on 16 March 2020 were genuine concerns based on Ms Pett’s own experience or staff reports, not sham allegations to facilitate dismissal. It also found that there was no evidence the conduct of that meeting was influenced by Ms Phillips’ sickness absence. In relation to the dismissal on 23 March 2020, the tribunal found that Ms Pett dismissed Ms Phillips because she genuinely believed she had engaged in misconduct and because she had not responded with evidence to the allegations, not because of the extent of her sickness absence or any potential future absence.

Applying section 15 Equality Act 2010, and referring to York City Council v Grosset, Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lax, and Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the tribunal concluded that the required causal link between disability-related absence and the treatment was not made out. It therefore dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaint in its entirety. Because the claim failed, no compensation or other award was made, and the tribunal said issues about an employment particulars award or ACAS uplift did not arise for decision.