Case 3314771/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Phillips v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314771/2019
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Members
- Panel members
- Ms K Knapton, Mr D Hart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Phillips was employed as a bereavement counsellor and her employment transferred to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust in November 2016. Her disability, asthma, was not in dispute. The claim concerned two disability discrimination complaints: a section 15 claim arising from a grievance meeting on 22 January 2019, and a section 20 reasonable adjustments claim concerning desk arrangements, storage, and access to counselling rooms.
On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found as a fact that there had not been a request to postpone the grievance meeting. It concluded that there was therefore no unfavourable treatment to which the respondent needed to answer, and in any event it did not see any connection with disability. The tribunal noted that the claimant's later appeal made a postponement request clearer, but that was not the position at the time of the grievance meeting.
On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had applied PCPs requiring hot desking, limited storage, and the use of counselling rooms as available. It found that the claimant had already been effectively hot desking for some time, that the respondent had acted reasonably in trying to accommodate her asthma by avoiding the need to walk outside in cold conditions, and that the proposed work locations and storage arrangements did not place her at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled person. It also found no substantial disadvantage from the counselling room arrangements, noting that there had been only a small number of booking incidents and that suitable rooms were available in close proximity.
The tribunal referred to sections 15, 20 and 136 Equality Act 2010, and to Pnaiser v NHS England, Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh, Project Management Institute v Latif, and Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc. It dismissed both claims and vacated the listed remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim based on the 22 January 2019 grievance meeting proceeding in the claimant's absence. The tribunal found there was no request to postpone the meeting and, in any event, no unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 20 Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments claim concerning hot desking, storage facilities, and the need to find a counselling room. The tribunal held that the claimant was not put at a substantial disadvantage and that the respondent's proposals were reasonable and practicable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc
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.