Case 3321596/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr L Ashwood, solicitor UNANIMOUS — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321596/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Ms G Binks, Mr T Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a part-time care assistant from 8 February 2017 and was absent from work from 4 December 2017 after being diagnosed with breast cancer. An occupational health report dated 8 January 2019 said she was unfit for work, that no adjustments were identified to support a return at that time, and that a return date could not be determined. After inviting her to a long-term sickness hearing on 7 May 2019, the respondent dismissed her for ill health in her absence and later upheld the dismissal on appeal on 30 May 2019.
The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was capability. It found that the claimant had been given ample and sufficiently clear notice of the meeting, had a proper opportunity to take part in consultation, and then had a full appeal hearing. It also found that the occupational health evidence was sufficient to justify the conclusions that she was not fit for work at the time of dismissal and that no foreseeable return date could be identified. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no facts from which it could infer that the dismissal was because of the claimant's cancer, and in any event found that the dismissal was not, on the balance of probabilities, because of disability. The section 15 EqA 2010 claim also failed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of foreseeable, regular attendance from care staff and held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim, taking into account the length of absence, the occupational health evidence, the cost of continued holiday accrual, and the continuity of care considerations it accepted.
The claimant succeeded only in her money claim for holiday pay and unpaid notice pay. The tribunal held that she should have been paid £1,602.15 gross in total for accrued holiday and notice pay, but had only received £870.91 gross, leaving an underpayment of £731.24 gross. That sum was awarded to her; no separate award was made for the dismissed claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for capability arising from long-term sickness absence, after 18 months' continuous absence, and held that consultation, medical evidence, and the appeal process were sufficient. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found there were no facts from which it could infer that the dismissal was because of the claimant's cancer and held that the dismissal was not, on the balance of probabilities, because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of foreseeable, regular attendance by care staff and held that dismissing the claimant was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded in her claim for holiday pay and unpaid notice pay; the tribunal held she had been underpaid on termination by £731.24 gross. | Upheld | — | £731 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £731
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- section 13 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- s.15 EqA 2010
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Plumb v Duncan Print Group Ltd
- Larner
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.