Case 3313867/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313867/2019
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Members
- Panel members
- Ms Robinson, Mr Middleton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person at the material time in 2018 and 2019, accepting that her dyslexia amounted to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent did not accept disability, but the tribunal relied on the 2007 assessment and the evidence of long-term understanding and memory difficulties.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that there was a PCP requiring ward clerks to read and understand the rota and act on it. It nevertheless found that the claimant had not shown that this PCP placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled comparator. The claimant gave no direct evidence that she could not read the rota, and the difficulty identified arose on two occasions when she failed to check it. The suggested adjustment, a short email reminder of changes, was not found to be a reasonable adjustment on the facts, including because one of the rota changes had already been emailed to her and the other occasion involved her attending on her day off after a ward move linked to her ankle injury.
The harassment complaint based on the 12 June 2018 informal meeting was found to be out of time under section 123 EqA 2010. The tribunal held that there was no conduct extending over a period between the June 2018 events and the February 2019 events, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Even if time had been extended, the tribunal said the discussion would not have amounted to harassment under section 26. The later harassment complaint based on the 19 February 2019 discussion also failed: the tribunal found that it was a reasonable management discussion intended to understand the claimant's needs and prevent a recurrence, and that mentioning dyslexia did not make the discussion harassment.
The victimisation claim failed because the June 2018 grievance was accepted as a protected act, but the claimant could not show a detriment arising from it. The tribunal also found no sufficient basis to connect the respondent's actions to the grievance. All disability discrimination claims were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim concerning an asserted PCP that ward clerks read and understand the rota and act on it; tribunal found no substantial disadvantage and no reasonable adjustment failure. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation arising from the 12 June 2018 informal meeting; tribunal held it was presented out of time, no just and equitable extension was justified, and it would have failed in any event. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation arising from the 19 February 2019 discussion about moving wards after the claimant's ankle injury; tribunal found it was a reasonable management discussion and not harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim relied on the June 2018 grievance as the protected act; tribunal found no detriment and no causal link to the grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.6 EqA disability definition
- s.20 and s.21 reasonable adjustments
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- s.26 EqA harassment test
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- s.27 EqA victimisation
- s.123 EqA time limits
- Hendricks continuing act test
- Ma v Merck Sharp & Dohme
- British Coal v Keeble just and equitable test
- Robinson v Post Office
- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Tarbuck v Sainsburys
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.