Case 3204197/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanna Boswell v Beacon Multi-Academy Trust Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3204197/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Misra KC
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs B Saund, Mrs G Forrest
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanna Boswell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a Teaching Assistant at Beal High School from 1 July 2015 until her dismissal on 8 March 2022, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the Respondent's management of her sickness absence. The Respondent conceded that the Claimant's thyroid cancer and hypocalcaemia were disabilities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and the Tribunal accepted her largely unchallenged medical evidence about her conditions and their symptoms. The Respondent also accepted that the Claimant had performed her role well and that her integrity was not in doubt.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal (s.94 ERA 1996) and disability discrimination under sections 15 (discrimination arising from disability), 19 (indirect discrimination) and 20-21 (failure to make reasonable adjustments) of the Equality Act 2010 were well founded and succeeded. The unfavourable treatment in issue included triggering Stage 1 of the Sickness Absence Procedure, issuing a Formal Written Warning, moving directly to Stage 3 without applying Stage 2, the application of the sickness absence procedure, and the decision to dismiss. The relevant PCP was the requirement to maintain regular and effective attendance.
The complaint of disability-related harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. The provided PDF text does not include the remedy figures or the tribunal's quantification of any award, and the remedy section of the list of issues records that compensation was to be determined if complaints were upheld.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal contrary to s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded and succeeds. Respondent relied on capability (s.98(2)(a) ERA) as the potentially fair reason. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 well founded and succeeds. Disabilities relied on and conceded: thyroid cancer and hypocalcaemia. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010 well founded and succeeds. PCP: requirement to maintain regular and effective attendance. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010 well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010 not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
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.