Ms Y Curness v British Airways plc — 2020

The claimant was a long-serving cabin crew employee dismissed under British Airways' EG300 attendance management procedure after repeated absences. The tribunal found the respondent managed her within that procedure, gave written notice of meetings and outcomes, allowed union accompaniment, obtained occupational health input, and issued a final written warning before dismissal. It rejected the suggestion that outcome letters were deliberately withheld and found the claimant had not read or absorbed important written information.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's pattern of absence, which related to capability and was a potentially fair reason. It held that Ms West had sufficient material before her, including the claimant's absence history and BAHS advice that she was fit to fly, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It also found Ms Martin was entitled to reject the appeal after reviewing the file, considering the claimant's appeal points, and placing limited weight on the Egemed letter.

The age discrimination claim failed because the claimant showed only that she was older, worked on World Wide Fleet, and was more expensive than Mixed Fleet staff; the tribunal found no facts from which age discrimination could be inferred and found age played no part in dismissal. The disability discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had disability protection because of cancer, but found dismissal was not because of disability, the proposed ground-role comparators were not materially comparable, the relevant absences did not arise in consequence of cancer or treatment, and the pleaded reasonable adjustments PCP was not established.