Case 3301588/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sandra Ashley v Hertfordshire Practical Parenting Programme Community Interest Company — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301588/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Mr A Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sandra Ashley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the start of the hearing the claimant withdrew her indirect disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Ms Sandra Ashley was disabled at all material times for Equality Act purposes, accepting that she had dyslexia and also recording that she had a depressive illness from January 2019, largely following her father's death. It did not find that her work-related complaints established any entitlement to relief.
On the section 15 Equality Act claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal on 16 August 2019 was unfavourable treatment, but found it was not because of something arising in consequence of disability. It held that the claimant's dyslexia did not materially impair her work or her participation in the investigation and disciplinary process, and that the depression known to the respondent was not an influence on the decision to dismiss. The dismissal was found to have been driven by conduct concerns identified in the respondent's letter of 20 July 2019, including record-keeping, funding, mileage, parking and management issues.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found the respondent had provided the claimant with investigation material in time to prepare for the investigatory meeting, including a summary of the former employees' allegations and photographs, and that it had been willing to allow a companion at disciplinary meetings. It also found the process was paused when the respondent received Dr Rogowski's letter saying the claimant was unfit to attend, and that the requests for information, passwords and company property while the claimant was absent were reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal rejected the claims that suspension, office access restrictions and the handling of the disciplinary process involved a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent dismissed for conduct under s98(2)(b) ERA 1996 and applied the Burchell approach to honest belief, reasonable grounds and reasonable investigation. It found that Mr Ogden and the other directors had sufficient grounds for their findings, that the procedure was fair overall, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also recorded that an appeal was offered on an independent basis, but it was not pursued to completion.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA claim. The tribunal accepted the claimant was disabled, but found her dismissal on 16 August 2019 was not because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under ss20-21 EqA. The tribunal found the respondent gave the claimant time to consider investigation material, allowed accompaniment, paused the process when medical evidence required it, and acted reasonably in the requests it made; no breach was made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for a conduct-related reason under s98(2)(b) ERA 1996, that the Burchell requirements were met, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s15 Equality Act 2010
- ss20-21 Equality Act 2010
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police UKEAT/0057/15
- Charlesworth v Dransfields Engineering Services Limited UKEAT/0197/16
- Environment Agency v Rowan 2008 ICR 218 EAT
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc 2006 ICR 524 CA
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters 2009 IRLR 991 EAT
- s98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- West Midlands Cooperative Society Limited v Tipton [1986] ICR 192
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden 2000 ICR 1283
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt 2003 ICR 111 CA
- Whitbread plc (t/a Whitbread Medway Inns) v Hall 2001 ICR 669 CA
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.