Case 3310202/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Gemma Farquharson v Milton Keynes College — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310202/2022
- Decision date
- 15 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr S Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Gemma Farquharson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Gemma Farquharson was disabled by reason of brain tumours and their effects, including epilepsy, memory loss, unilateral hearing loss and a dystonic tremor. It accepted that Milton Keynes College knew of her condition by October 2019 and knew by February 2022 that she was planning brain surgery and chemotherapy. It also found that she was an occasional worker under the January 2020 agreement, which stated the College had no obligation to offer work and that hours depended on business need.
The main dispute concerned events in late April and early May 2022. The tribunal found that the Claimant was offered work after 29 April 2022 on four occasions, including an email on 8 May 2022, an offer on 13 July 2022, an offer of a permanent English teaching role on 23 August 2022, and another offer on 1 September 2022. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that a reorganisation of the English and Maths department was under way and that no occasional worker continued in the English department once that reorganisation was implemented.
On the alleged 3 May 2022 phone call, the tribunal did not accept the Claimant's account that Ms Wilson said it would not be viable for her to work at the College if she was to have radiotherapy and chemotherapy. It found the Claimant's versions of the conversation inconsistent, noted that she had not made a contemporaneous note, and concluded that Ms Wilson did not use those words. The tribunal also found that the Respondent had continued to offer work after learning of the Claimant's planned chemotherapy and that the Claimant had not asked for a phased return to work.
For those reasons, the tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination claim, the discrimination arising from disability claim, and the harassment related to disability claim. It made no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the Respondent had not treated the Claimant less favourably because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found there was no unfavourable treatment because the Claimant was offered work after 29 April 2022. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found Ms Wilson did not say the alleged words on 3 May 2022 and so there was no unwanted conduct. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Bakkali v Greater Manchester (South) t/a Stagecoach Manchester
- Grant v Land Registry
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Ayodele v City Link
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.