Case 3204962/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Lietor v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204962/2022
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr R Blanco, Mr L Bowman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Lietor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Emergency Staff Nurse at the respondent's Royal London Hospital. The respondent accepted that she was disabled at the relevant time and that her inability to work night shifts arose in consequence of her disability. The tribunal found that the respondent's recruitment process had resulted in the Emergency Department not being told before the claimant started work that occupational health had recommended exemption from night shifts.
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaints. It found that the claimant was not required to take unpaid unauthorised leave because of disability-related inability to work nights; rather, the relevant absences were recorded as unauthorised because she did not follow the absence reporting protocol. It also found that the respondent did not require a flexible working request before considering adjustments, because it had already explored or trialled options including twilight shifts, redeployment, recruiting a nights-only nurse, reduced hours, and treating rostered night absences as medical suspension if the reporting protocol was followed.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring Emergency Department nurses at the relevant bands to work night shifts, and that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. However, it found that permanently exempting her from night shifts in the Emergency Department was not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances, particularly in light of the evidence about 24-hour emergency staffing, difficulty covering night shifts, cost and skill mix issues, impact on other staff, and patient safety. It found that the respondent had explored and proposed other measures, including redeployment to Ambulatory Care, and that there was no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the alleged unfavourable treatment was either not because of something arising from disability or did not happen as alleged. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the respondent had not failed to make a reasonable adjustment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.39(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment paragraph 6.28
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.