Case 3201815/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Mahnaz v The Essex Community Rehabilitation Co Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201815/2018
- Decision date
- 28 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr T Burrows, Mr D Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Mahnaz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss J Mahnaz, worked for the respondent as a Programme Tutor from 28 May 2012 until 30 March 2018. The tribunal found there was no express term that she would deliver only accredited programmes, and held that delivery of non-accredited programmes was a relevant and appropriate additional duty for a Programme Tutor.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled within the Equality Act by reason of post-sepsis syndrome, and that the respondent knew or should have known of that by 2 May 2017. It identified the relevant PCP as the requirement to work 37 hours a week in scheduled programme sessions, including up to three evening sessions, and accepted that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of fatigue.
The tribunal held, however, that the respondent had already made reasonable adjustments, including reducing the number of group sessions for a period, allowing work from Southend where practicable, moving her start time to after 10am where practicable, and allowing early departure to catch a train. It found that a permanent 9am to 5pm pattern was not reasonable or practicable because the service needed morning and evening sessions, tutor resources were limited, and other tutors were already stretched.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegations that managers spread rumours, asked whether she was infectious, made the alleged comments in February 2018, shouted at her, or mishandled the grievance process. It found that the occupational health referrals, capability process, and grievance delay were undertaken for proper reasons, and that there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. On that basis the claimant was not constructively dismissed, and the reasons say there was no need to decide whether any dismissal was unfair once that conclusion had been reached.
The written judgment's dispositive section dismissed disability discrimination under sections 15, 20-21 and 26 Equality Act 2010 and unfair dismissal, and the claim was dismissed in full. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed and said there was no need to decide whether any dismissal was unfair, although the headline judgment also lists unfair dismissal as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Covered the pleaded disability discrimination complaints under ss15, 20-21 and 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled by post-sepsis syndrome and that the respondent knew or should have known by 2 May 2017, but held the respondent had made reasonable adjustments and rejected the alleged s15 and harassment conduct. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Malik v BCCI
- Western Excavation Limited v Sharp
- Woods v Wm Car Services (Peterborough) Limited
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Project Management v Latif
- Tarbuck v Sainsburys
- Chapman v Simon
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.