Case 3304020/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Kingdon, lay representative For the v Mr A Jonah, director — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304020/2022
- Decision date
- 11 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs Hancock, Mrs F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Kingdon, lay representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Alicia Burton worked for Ridgebrook Hospitality Limited from 7 September 2021 until her dismissal was communicated on 7 January 2022. The case before the Tribunal concerned unpaid holiday pay of £118.93, unpaid notice pay of £112.50, and a claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 alleging discrimination arising from disability. The Respondent accepted liability for the holiday and notice pay claims and paid those sums before the hearing, so those claims were recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
The central issue was whether the Claimant was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes during her employment. The Tribunal accepted that she had a mental impairment during an earlier period when she was receiving counselling from Dr Anderson, and it was prepared to accept that this amounted to a substantial adverse effect at that time. However, it found no evidence that the substantial adverse effect continued beyond about April 2019, and it did not accept that the impairment was shown to have recurred or continued through the period of employment in 2021 and early 2022.
The Tribunal considered the evidence about the period after 22 November 2021, when the Claimant was signed off sick on grounds of "mental health" after her Universal Credit payments stopped. It held that the evidence did not establish a mental impairment of anxiety and/or depression during that period, and characterised the Claimant's condition as a stress reaction to a difficult life event rather than a disability for Equality Act purposes. It also found that, even if there had been an impairment, the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
In any event, the Tribunal found that the Respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability if one existed, because of Mr Jonah's conversation with Ms Kingdon in early December 2021. But it accepted Mr Jonah's evidence that he decided to terminate the Claimant because of her probationary performance and attendance issues up to 21 November 2021, not because of her absence on mental health grounds. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the section 15 disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was brought under section 15 Equality Act 2010 as discrimination arising from disability. The Tribunal found the Claimant had not shown that she was disabled during the material period and, in any event, the dismissal was for probation/performance reasons rather than something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The Respondent accepted liability for unpaid holiday pay and paid the claimed sum before the hearing. The Tribunal recorded the claim as dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was pleaded as breach of contract. The Respondent accepted liability and paid the sum due before the hearing, and the Tribunal recorded the claim as dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance paragraph B1
- Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance paragraph C3
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Igweik v TSB Bank plc
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.