Ms Tara Grossman, solicitor, of Litigation Friend For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as the Registered Manager of Park House, a residential social care unit. She had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and, after returning from maternity leave, had discussed home-working on Fridays because of fatigue. On 10 January 2019 she saw bruising on a service user, LS, completed a START form, and then went home when her office equipment and connectivity were disconnected. The tribunal accepted that safeguarding steps were required and that the respondent’s procedures required the Home Manager to inform the appropriate authorities without delay, and in any event within 24 hours.

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant’s conduct in relation to the email from Sophie Lloyd-Smith about an incident on 23 January 2019 involving a chair being used to restrain LS. Mr Dalrymple and Mr Hegarty did not believe the claimant’s explanation that she had misunderstood the email as referring to a previous chair-related issue. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed because the decision-makers did not believe her account of how she responded to that email. To the extent that the events of 10 January 2019 were part of the dismissal decision, the tribunal found that the reason was her failure to support staff and make timely notifications, not the fact that she had gone home because her equipment was unavailable.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had a fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that Mr Dalrymple and Mr Hegarty genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, and that there were reasonable grounds for that belief. It held that the overall procedure was not outside the range of reasonable responses. The failure to provide the claimant with Mr Lee’s statement before dismissal was found to be an unfortunate but genuine oversight and not material. The tribunal also found that the investigation report and appendices had been provided, and that the appeal was not unfair because Mr Hegarty was a suitable decision-maker with relevant operational knowledge.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was not treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability. It found that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant’s failure to tell the truth about her response to the Sophie Lloyd-Smith email, which did not arise from her multiple sclerosis. The tribunal added that, if section 15 had been engaged, dismissal would still have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of safeguarding vulnerable service users. Both claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.