Case 3307196/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Banton For the v Mr Adjei — 2019
- Case reference
- 3307196/2018
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms Baggs, Mr Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Banton For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a nurse with hearing loss accepted as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, worked in an open-plan office from August 2015. The tribunal found that the agreed desk position was not achieved because the intended wall-side area was occupied, leaving her by cabinets and a printer in a noisy environment. It accepted that the 2015 Access to Work recommendations for an acoustic survey and deaf awareness training were not implemented, but also found that when she moved to her own office in March 2016 she agreed to that arrangement as a short-term solution and later said she was comfortable with the desk location in the new building.
The reasonable adjustments claim and the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim were both found to be out of time. For the sections 20 and 21 claim, the tribunal held that time started to run by March 2016 and the claim lodged on 14 May 2018 was almost two years late; it refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1) EqA 2010. For the section 15 claim, the last relied-on act was 19 September 2017 and the claim was about eight months late; the tribunal again declined to extend time, noting the grievance process and union involvement during the delay, and it found no continuing course of conduct.
On the constructive dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, the tribunal accepted that the noisy open-plan environment had a severe effect on the claimant and that the respondent should have done more to progress the Access to Work recommendations. However, it found no excessive scrutiny or intimidation by NP or AB, no promise that a HR investigation would be carried out, and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Applying the last straw authorities in Kaur and Omilaju, the tribunal held that the 19 September 2017 meeting was only postponed for reasonable reasons, the rescheduled meeting meant the respondent was addressing her concerns, and the claimant did not resign in response to a qualifying last straw. All claims therefore failed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010; found out of time. The tribunal held time started to run by March 2016 and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1) EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 EqA 2010; found out of time. The last relied-on act was 19 September 2017 and the tribunal declined to extend time under section 123(1) EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal held there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no qualifying last straw. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 123(1) EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- last straw doctrine
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1493
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.