Case 3319890/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Goodwin, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319890/2019
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Panel members
- Ms L Durrant, Mr C Davie
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Goodwin, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Barnes worked for Marina Developments Limited as an office administrator from 1 August 2016. After developing severe anxiety disorder and being off work from 31 March 2018 until 22 January 2019, she returned on a phased plan. The tribunal considered harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and constructive unfair dismissal.
On harassment, the tribunal rejected the allegations about insufficient contact during absence, cancelled reviews, and failure to refer to occupational health. It upheld, taken together, the allegations about not allowing her to return to her previous workstation, removing her from the key telephone number list, removing her name from trays, failing to provide an adequate workstation, changing her responsibilities, and excluding her from office niceties. It found those matters were connected to her mental ill health, created the proscribed environment, and formed a continuous course of conduct that was in time.
The direct discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found that the respondent had made sufficient attempts to keep in touch, that the missed reviews were by agreement, and that there was no legal obligation to refer Miss Barnes to occupational health. It held there were no facts from which it could infer that any less favourable treatment was because of disability. By contrast, the claim for discrimination arising from disability succeeded in relation to the workstation, telephone list, trays, responsibilities, and exclusion from office niceties, which were unfavourable treatment arising from her absence and disability and were not justified. The claims about the change of hours, the contact arrangements, the reviews, and the occupational health referral failed.
On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that Miss Barnes resigned because of the harassment and the discrimination arising from disability, amounting to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that she did not affirm the contract by waiting for alternative employment or by giving notice while remaining employed.
The tribunal awarded compensation of £16,636.30. That sum comprised £1,516.59 for loss of earnings and loss of statutory rights, £13,000 for injury to feelings, and £2,119.71 interest at 8% from 23 June 2019 to 27 May 2021. It recorded that the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. The tribunal held that the remaining conduct, taken together, created the proscribed environment and continued to termination. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability. The tribunal rejected the keep-in-touch, scheduled review and occupational health allegations and found no less favourable treatment because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010). The tribunal upheld the workstation, key telephone number list, paper tray, responsibilities and office niceties allegations, finding them unfavourable and not justified. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held the claimant resigned because of the discriminatory treatment and a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,636
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,517
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- Shamoon detriment test
- s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm comparator
- Nagarajan causation test
- s.15 Equality Act 2010 / Pnaiser approach
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Western Excavating constructive dismissal test
- Mahmud & Malik mutual trust and confidence
- Kaur last straw approach
- Vento bands
- Armitage, Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson principles
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.