Miss L Mahoney v The Vogue Clinic Limited — 2022

The tribunal accepted that Miss L Mahoney had chronic cluster headaches and was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It found that The Vogue Clinic Limited first had actual knowledge of the disability on 3 June 2019, when the claimant told Miss C Pace about her cluster headaches by text, although by 3 and 4 June the respondent also had knowledge of how the condition affected her. The tribunal found that the claimant had not told Miss C Pace, Miss S Pace or the students about the disability before that point, and that by 22 June 2019 the claimant was frustrated by student questioning rather than experiencing a cluster attack in the training room.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time: the tribunal found the latest date for presentation was 3 September 2019, but the claim was not presented until 13 October 2019, and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. No monetary award was made.

The section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability failed because the tribunal found there had been no dismissal. It found that on 22 June 2019 the claimant resigned in clear and unambiguous words, and that her engagement ended by that resignation rather than by the later text exchange. The tribunal did not need to decide limitation points for the discrimination claims because each of those claims failed on the merits.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed. The tribunal found there was no medical room, but the toilet was an adequate private place for self-medication and the claimant had in fact used it on 1 June 2019. It also found that a requirement for a staff member to clear the classroom was not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances, and that the respondent was not in breach for not informing students about the claimant's condition because the claimant told Miss C Pace on 5 June 2019 that she had told the students herself. The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found the students did not harass the claimant, that any alleged student conduct was not justiciable under section 40 of the Equality Act 2010, and that Miss Pace's references to 'outbursts' and 'meltdown' related to the claimant's classroom-control behaviour rather than to her disability.