Ms L Nandlal v Sanrizz (St Albans) Ltd — 2022

The respondent conceded that Ms Nandlal had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at all relevant times. The tribunal found that Ms Cox and Ms Cole knew the claimant was dealing with anxiety and depression, that her reluctance to travel to the Academy by public transport was linked to those conditions, and that her February and March 2020 absences were genuinely for mental health reasons. It rejected any suggestion that those absences were not genuine because she had socialised or been on holiday.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Cox had formed a view that the claimant's commitment to becoming a graduate stylist was less than sufficient, and that this perception was partly based on the claimant's disability-related absence and difficulty attending the Academy. It also found that the claimant's dismissal took effect on 14 May 2020 following the 7 May 2020 notice, but that the actual dismissal decision was made by Mr Rizzo in the context of the pandemic and the group's financial position.

The tribunal found that Mr Rizzo was looking at the medium-term financial consequences for the group as a whole, including salon closures and the need to retain particular staff such as Ms Cole, and that he was not motivated, even in part, by the claimant's disability-related absences or by Ms Cox's view of her commitment. On that basis, the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim failed because the dismissal was not found to be because of something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal said that, if that causal link had been established, the aim of ensuring the business could carry on would have been legitimate, but dismissal would not have been proportionate. It therefore cancelled the listed remedy hearing. The tribunal also noted that an unfair dismissal complaint had earlier been rejected by letter dated 8 December 2020 and was not reconsidered.