Case 3303076/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Medany v CPM United Kingdom Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303076/2023
- Decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Panel members
- Mrs C Tufts, Mr T Maclean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Medany
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Medany worked for CPM United Kingdom Limited from 16 September 2019 until her dismissal took effect on 6 January 2023. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled throughout her employment, with a mobility impairment affecting her left foot. Her claims were direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and unfair dismissal, and the tribunal dismissed them all.
On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal held there was no direct evidence that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because of disability, and no proper comparator because Richard Worker did not share her mobility impairment. It also recorded that, by the end of the case, all pre-4 January 2023 disability discrimination allegations were out of time because there was no continuing act.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the parking space, non-automated front doors and heavy inner door were physical features that, if actionable at all, had been present since the start of employment in 2019, so those complaints were years out of time and there was no basis to extend time just and equitably. The accessible power sockets were fixed the day after the problem arose, the disabled toilet issues were no longer live by the time the claim was presented, and the tribunal held that the move to the first floor did not restart time for the heavy inner door.
On victimisation, the tribunal considered the 9 March 2022 building walk and the 6 July 2022 grievance as the alleged protected acts, but found that the relevant decision-makers often did not know of the building walk or the substance of the grievance. It held that the 1 June reporting-line change was not a demotion, the grievance and appeal decisions were not shown to be because of any protected act, the October 2022 desk move and the November 2022 compliance email were explained by operational reasons, and the redundancy selection and dismissal were made by Mr Worker without knowledge of any protected act. The unfair dismissal claim failed because redundancy was accepted as the reason and, under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the consultation, scoring and search for vacancies were reasonable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination (DD1-7) was dismissed. The tribunal found no direct evidence that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because of disability and no proper comparator, because Mr Worker did not share her mobility impairment. It also recorded that all pre-4 January 2023 disability discrimination allegations were out of time because there was no continuing act. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. The parking space, non-automated front doors and heavy inner door were present from the start of employment in 2019, so those complaints were substantially out of time with no just and equitable extension. Accessible power sockets were fixed the next day, the disabled toilet issues were no longer live when the claim was presented, and the inner-door point did not restart time when the claimant moved to the first floor. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation (V1-7) was dismissed. The tribunal considered the 9 March 2022 building walk and the 6 July 2022 grievance as the alleged protected acts, but found that the relevant decision-makers often did not know of the building walk or the substance of the grievance, and the claimant did not establish that the reporting-line change, grievance outcome, desk move, compliance email, redundancy selection or dismissal were because of any protected act. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal and held, applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, that the consultation, selection/scoring exercise and search for alternative employment were within the range of reasonable responses. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice paragraphs 3.29-3.30
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010 and Schedule 8 paragraph 20(1)(b)
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.