Ms S Sharpe v Promotion Line Ltd — 2021

The tribunal found that Ms Sharpe was dismissed by reason of redundancy after Promotion Line Ltd suffered a major fall in work between January and February 2020, including cancelled work worth more than 450,000 and a 50% reduction in turnover caused by the coronavirus pandemic. It accepted that Ms Ferguson considered contingency options, spoke to staff on 18 March 2020 about short-time working, and later met Ms Sharpe on 20 March 2020 after she declined to sign the short-time working agreement. Applying section 98 and section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the guidance in Williams v Compair Maxam, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that Ms Sharpe was disabled by chronic asthma and found that Promotion Line had at least constructive knowledge of that disability from discussions in 2017, 2019 and on 17 March 2020. It rejected the alleged PCP that staff could only work from home if they had a company laptop, noting the 16 March 2020 email asking staff about home equipment and broadband. It did accept that there was a PCP preventing graphic design staff from taking company computer equipment home to work from home, but found that, on the facts then found, Ms Sharpe was not placed at a particular or substantial disadvantage because she was able to attend work and the tribunal did not accept that she was at greater stress or anxiety than non-disabled staff at that stage.

The tribunal also held that, if it had been necessary to decide justification, the temporary restriction on removing computer equipment was justified because insurance arrangements and client consent needed to be obtained before equipment could leave the office. For that reason, the indirect discrimination claim and the reasonable adjustments claim failed under section 19 and sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010. In relation to holiday pay, Ms Sharpe claimed 24.62 for 0.2 days' accrued leave; the tribunal had no evidence or accounts to establish the amount and made only a conditional order that the respondent pay that sum if its account review showed it remained outstanding. It also vacated the provisional remedy hearing listed for 30 November 2021.