Ms Cathy Paxon v Care UK Community Partnerships Limited — 2022

The tribunal found that the Claimant had disabilities by reason of EDS, which the Respondent accepted, and Asplenia, which the tribunal found met the statutory definition. It found the Respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the Asplenia disability, including because of the occupational health report, the Claimant's disclosures, and her later shielding letter.

The tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that the Claimant was dismissed for poor performance. It found the Respondent's evidence on performance concerns unreliable, noted that concerns had not been raised before the probation meeting, and concluded that the stated performance reason was a pretext. The tribunal found the real and principal reason for dismissal was that the Claimant had to shield and proposed to work from home rather than attend the office.

For the disability claims, the tribunal found the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability and that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the Respondent's aim of organising its HR/ER support function. It also found that the office-working requirement placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that temporary full-time home working was a reasonable adjustment. For the ERA claims, the tribunal upheld the s.100(1)(e) complaint but dismissed the s.100(1)(c) complaint because the Claimant's health and safety concerns were not the principal reason for dismissal.

Remedy was not determined in this judgment. Compensation for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and automatically unfair dismissal was left to a remedy hearing if not agreed by the parties.