Mrs L Vivian-Jones v Parity for Disability — 2022

Mrs L Vivian-Jones was employed by Parity for Disability as a shop manager from 17 June 2019 to 20 March 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant made two protected disclosures on 21 January 2020, not 20 January as pleaded: she informed the police about the shop incident and then informed Ms Cooper that she had done so. The respondent accepted those disclosures were protected, but the tribunal held that none of the six alleged detriments occurred as alleged, or were materially influenced by the disclosures.

On the detriment allegations, the tribunal rejected the claim that Ms Cooper was angry or asked the claimant what Natasha Dos Santos had done to encourage the incident, and it found that Mrs Stevens did not tell the claimant off or accuse her of being unprofessional. The tribunal found the respondent did provide support after the incident through calls, emails, safeguarding information and training links, and that the evening calls with Mrs Stevens were not a detriment and were not disclosure-driven. The comment said to Ms Dos Santos in frustration about a separate complaint was not made to the claimant and was not a detriment, the allegation about negative electronic communications was not proved, and the extension of probation on 12 February 2020 was based on the claimant's time off and concerns about sales, not on the protected disclosures.

The disability discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled at the material times, but that she did not tell Mrs Stevens about her disability when they first met and that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the disability until 17 February 2020. Before that date there was no duty to make reasonable adjustments. In any event, the tribunal found the respondent had provided the relevant steps relied on by the claimant, including handover and training, a laptop and efforts to sort IT access, reduced hours, flexibility over opening times, a return-to-work meeting and a phased return.

The constructive discriminatory dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found no unlawful discrimination by the respondent. The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 also failed: the tribunal found the principal reason for the claimant's resignation was the respondent's expectations about sales and footfall, and her view that those expectations were unrealistic, rather than the protected disclosures. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the contract did not provide a right to overtime pay; it provided time off in lieu for additional hours. The tribunal accepted evidence that there had been an underpayment of around £80, but found the respondent had already made good the issue by paying £217, and no further underpayment was proved. Time limits did not need to be decided because all claims failed on the merits.