Case 3312297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bronze, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312297/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Mr R Alldritt, Ms G Bhatt
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Bronze, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kotecha worked for the London Borough of Hillingdon as its only Restorative Justice Officer from 2003 until his dismissal took effect on 22 June 2020. He went off sick on 12 August 2019 with back pain and remained absent thereafter. The tribunal found that the role was more practical and frontline than office-based, and that more than half of the work had to be done outside an office in face-to-face work with young people and communities.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal rejected the case that the decision to dismiss had been predetermined or that the appeal process was unfair. It found that Ms Wyatt genuinely wanted the claimant to return to work if he could do the job, that the respondent had obtained occupational health advice in November 2019, February 2020 and July 2020, and that Mrs Kelly considered the appeal carefully in the light of later medical evidence and the claimant’s own representations. The tribunal also found it was not outside the range of reasonable responses for the respondent to conclude that the claimant could not realistically return to the practical parts of his role, even with home-working or redeployment, and that his continued absence had an operational and financial impact on the youth justice service.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, that the respondent knew of the disability, and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of that disability. It nevertheless found the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, namely the effective use of financial resources and the provision of an effective youth justice service. It therefore dismissed the section 15 claim. The direct discrimination claim, reasonable adjustments claim, breach of contract claim, and unpaid wages claim were withdrawn orally on 2 August 2022 and dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim dismissed on the merits. The tribunal held that the dismissal for capability/long-term sickness absence was not unfair within s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 and 39 EqA 2010 claim. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability, but held the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010. Withdrawn orally by counsel on 2 August 2022 and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under s.20 EqA 2010. Withdrawn orally by counsel on 2 August 2022 and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn orally by counsel on 2 August 2022 and dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.6 EqA 2010 and Schedule 1 disability test
- s.15 EqA 2010 legitimate aim/proportionality
- All Answers Ltd v W
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- B S v Dundee City Council
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.