Case 3305266/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr K Hewlett (all dates except 18 January) and Ms S Cullen (18 January only) For the v Mr P Gupta and Mrs R Gupta — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305266/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
- Panel members
- Mr N Bustred, Ms A Brosnan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr K Hewlett (all dates except 18 January) and Ms S Cullen (18 January only) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a person with disability by virtue of dyslexia, but it rejected the disability discrimination claims because the respondents did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability. The tribunal did not accept the alleged 2018 disclosure, noted that there were no references to dyslexia in the later communications between the parties, and held that the s.15 claim would in any event have failed on the facts. It also held that the alleged written-response practice was not a PCP, but rather individual management decisions, applying Ishola v TfL.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the operative dismissal was the summary dismissal on 22 April 2020. It found that the reasons were a breakdown in communication, altered reliability and attendance, the claimant's allegation that she had been asked to work at unavailable times, her demand for a 100% Covid-free workplace, and the resulting loss of trust and confidence. Those matters were capable of amounting to a potentially fair reason for dismissal, but the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondents did not engage in a proper dialogue, provide a clear written summary of concerns, offer meaningful accompaniment, or provide an effective appeal. The tribunal also found contributory conduct and applied Polkey, concluding that if the claimant had not been dismissed she would likely have remained employed until 7 July 2020.
The holiday pay claim failed because the contract provided for holiday pay and the tribunal found it had been paid in full. The claim for arrears of pay for March 2020 also failed: the claimant was not entitled to pay for 17 March because she was off sick and below the SSP threshold, not entitled to pay for 24 March because she had made herself unavailable for that shift, and not entitled to pay for 25 March because it was school holiday. On remedy, the tribunal awarded £189 for notice pay, reduced the unfair dismissal basic award to £81 and the compensatory award to £108, and added a 10% ACAS uplift of £37.80, making a total sum ordered payable of £415.80.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by dyslexia, but it accepted the respondents did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability. It also held that the s.15 and s.20 Equality Act claims were not made out on the facts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was treated as the summary dismissal on 22 April 2020. The tribunal found contributory conduct and applied reductions to the basic and compensatory awards; the 10% ACAS uplift was ordered separately. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay for the period 22 April 2020 to 18 May 2020. | Upheld | — | £189 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found contractual holiday pay rights were set out in the contract and had been met in full. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay for March 2020, including 17 March, 24 March and 25 March, failed on the tribunal's findings as to entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £416
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £81
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £108
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v TfL
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- Polkey
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.