Case 3313417/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Josephine Anne Joanne O’Reilly v Luton Irish Forum (Company Limited by Guarantee & Registered Charity) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313417/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Panel members
- Mr P Maclean, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Josephine Anne Joanne O’Reilly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal accepted that Ms O'Reilly had a disability consisting of chronic myalgic pain affecting her whole body and reduced mobility, and that Luton Irish Forum's business relied on project funding and room-hire income for overheads including her salary. It found that from lockdown in late March 2020 the premises had to close to clients and hirings, and that room-hire revenue fell sharply, with the evidence including a reduction from more than £3,000 to £700 between March and September 2020 and audited 2020/21 accounts showing room-hire revenue of £4,175 compared with £31,660 the previous year.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that redundancy was the reason the employer had in mind for dismissal for the purposes of section 98(1) and (2) ERA 1996, and that the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It rejected the claimant's case that there had been a prior decision to dismiss her, that the consultation was a sham, or that no genuine redundancy situation existed. The tribunal found that management had genuinely considered whether the Customer Services Officer role could continue, consulted with the claimant over a period beginning on 12 June 2020, considered alternatives, and offered her a trial of an alternative Office Manager role before concluding the trial had not succeeded and dismissing the appeal.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the section 15 EqA 2010 claim. It held that the dismissal was for redundancy and not because the CEO was fed up with accommodating the claimant's disability, so the claim failed. It also rejected the sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010 reasonable adjustments claim, finding that the objectives for the alternative role were modified by making certain tasks non-time-specific, allowing more time for walk rounds, and limiting face-to-face contact so far as reasonably practicable.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's reliance on giving evidence in another employee's whistleblowing case did not amount to her own protected act for section 27 EqA 2010 purposes. The whistleblowing and victimisation claims were withdrawn and dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim dismissed; the tribunal found the dismissal was because of redundancy and not because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010 reasonable adjustments claim dismissed; the tribunal found the objectives for the alternative role had been modified and no breach was established. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Withdrawn and dismissed; the tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted it had no prospect of success. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Withdrawn and dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant's reliance on evidence in another employee's case was not her own protected act under section 27 EqA 2010. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Limited
- Safeway v Burrell
- Moon v Homeworthy Furniture (Northern) Limited
- James W Cook & Co (Wivenhoe) Limited v Tipper
- Jones v BT Utility
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura
- s.15 EqA 2010
- s.20 and s.21 EqA 2010
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.