Case 3202267/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Hillsley v Home-Start Colchester — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202267/2019
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Ms P Alford, Ms J Henry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Hillsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Hillsley resigned after a long absence caused by knee problems and brought claims based on the Respondent's handling of her sickness absence and return to work. The tribunal accepted that her knee condition was a disability. It found that Home-Start Colchester had paid her contractual sick pay, held reviews, obtained occupational health reports, and planned her return once she said she was fit to come back in July 2019.
On the constructive dismissal case, the tribunal found no express or implied contractual breach. It held that the Respondent did not fail to follow the sickness absence policy in any material respect, that it did carry out return-to-work risk assessments, that it did not breach the Equality, Fairness and Diversity Policy by not giving more pastoral contact, and that there was no breach in not considering home working because that had not been put forward as a proposal. It also rejected the assertions that the Respondent failed to provide a safe workplace, intimidated or humiliated her, or breached trust and confidence. The tribunal therefore found there was no constructive dismissal and that the question of whether any dismissal would have been fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 did not arise.
The disability discrimination claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the duties given on return were a gradual re-entry into work and that the occupational health report had recommended admin support duties. It held that there was no demotion because "Project Leader" was only a courtesy title, that the comments about other staff and about sit-down jobs did not amount to unlawful treatment, that the Clacton office was not suitable for lone working, and that taxis, home working, and a volunteer assistant were not reasonable adjustments on the facts found. It found no PCPs were established as alleged, no substantial disadvantage on the facts found, and no harassment. The tribunal said it was not necessary to decide the time-limit issue because none of the discrimination claims succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996; the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract, no resignation caused by any breach, and said the fair-dismissal question was not applicable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found no less favourable treatment on the pleaded return-to-work matters, comments, equipment issues or work allocation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found no established PCPs on the facts found and no failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the complained-of conduct was not related to disability and did not amount to harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Limited v Wong [2005] IRLR 258
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Limited [2003] IRLR 332
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1913
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.