Case 3204838/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Munni v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204838/2022
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Clark, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Munni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was dismissed on 29 March 2022 after long-term and recurrent sickness absence. The Respondent accepted disability by rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia, anxiety/depression was conceded during the hearing, and the Tribunal found the under-active thyroid was also a disability by the final absence period. The Tribunal found the Respondent had applied PCPs requiring Public Health Officers to perform their full role and maintain satisfactory attendance, and that these placed the Claimant at substantial disadvantage, but it rejected each alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments on its merits.
On harassment, the Tribunal found the evidence did not support the alleged pattern of weekly check-ins over the years or numerous calls while the Claimant was in Bangladesh. It found the contact was connected to sickness absence management, had not been objected to in the relevant way, and did not violate dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
On dismissal, the Tribunal found the Respondent genuinely believed the Claimant was incapable of carrying out her role, had obtained recent Occupational Health advice, had consulted her at the Stage 3 meeting, and had considered alternatives including adjustments and redeployment. Although the dismissal had a significant discriminatory impact, the Tribunal found the Respondent had done enough to show dismissal was proportionate to the legitimate aim of efficient running of its public health service, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses for unfair dismissal purposes.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found capability was the reason for dismissal, the Claimant was not medically capable of doing her job at dismissal, the Respondent had obtained up-to-date Occupational Health advice and consulted her, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal accepted dismissal was unfavourable treatment connected to sickness absence and reasonable-adjustment needs arising from disability, but found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of efficient running of the Respondent's enterprise. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal rejected the alleged failures concerning Dragon training, chair adjustment time, further time before dismissal, home and flexible working, rehabilitation or annual leave, complaints handling, change of line manager, redeployment, and delaying dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal rejected the allegations about weekly check-ins and contact while the Claimant was in Bangladesh, finding the conduct was not unwanted on the facts and in any event did not have the proscribed purpose or effect. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
25 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- York City Council v Grosset
- Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lax
- O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy
- Gray v University of Portsmouth
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Alam
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- O'Hanlon v Commissioners for HR Revenue & Customs
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Hendricks
- Fernandes v Department of Work and Pensions
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- band of reasonable responses
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
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.