Case 3201707/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Carter v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201707/2018
- Decision date
- 3 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Houzer, Mr T Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Carter was a senior sister in the Respondent's Adult Critical Care Unit and was admitted to be disabled by reason of symphysis pubis and hallux valgus. The Tribunal found that she had a high level of sickness absence, including 375 days since September 2015, and accepted that the absence of a Band 7 nurse had a significant impact on the unit, including staffing, senior cover, service delivery and cost.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had legitimate aims in managing sickness absence and maintaining attendance, and that it was reasonable to be concerned about future absence. However, it found that the March 2018 absence was connected to the foot deformity and that the Respondent should have investigated that connection before treating the absence as a breach of the sickness target and moving to Stage 3. It held that disregarding that short disability-related absence for the purpose of the target, and obtaining further OH advice, were reasonable adjustments.
For the section 15 claim, the Tribunal held that the Stage 3 meeting, dismissal and appeal rejection were unfavourable treatment because of disability-related absence and were not objectively justified, because a reasonable adjustment would have avoided the step to Stage 3 at that point. For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted capability as the reason and accepted that dismissal could be within the range of reasonable responses, but found the overall procedure unreasonable, including failure to postpone the Stage 3 meeting when the Claimant's father was gravely ill, failure to investigate the final absence, the inappropriate dismissal-letter instruction, and shortcomings in the appeal. It found that Mrs Carter would in any event have been fairly dismissed by 31 December 2018 because of later continuing absence.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal upheld the complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the Stage 3 meeting, dismissal and appeal rejection. The allegation concerning the instruction not to contact staff or visit Trust premises was found to be unfavourable treatment but not because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal upheld the complaint that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the March 2018 foot-related absence should have been disregarded for the purpose of the sickness target, and that obtaining further OH advice would also have been a reasonable step. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds, particularly the failure to investigate the final absence and concerns about the handling of the Stage 3 and appeal meetings. It also found a 100% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed by 31 December 2018 in any event. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey reduction
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Ltd
- O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Hull City Council v Matuszowicz
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.