Case 3324170/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Cathryn Hulme v British Airways plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3324170/2019
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin
- Panel members
- Mrs B Handley-Howorth, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Cathryn Hulme
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as cabin crew and had fibromyalgia, which the respondent accepted amounted to a disability. She had a history of substantial sickness absence, including earlier disability-related absence and later stress-related absence which was not advanced as a disability. The respondent dismissed her for capability after considering her attendance history, occupational health advice, her return to work, and the prospects of sustained attendance.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that capability was a potentially fair reason and that the respondent was entitled to consider the whole pattern of absence and likely future attendance. It rejected the argument that the absence management policy had been misapplied, found that the review and appeal formed part of a substantially fair process, and concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the claimant's earlier fibromyalgia-related absence had been taken into account, so there was a link for s15 purposes. However, it accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of maintaining and sustaining regular attendance and found that considering all of the claimant's recurring medical conditions and absence history was proportionate. The reasonable adjustments claim was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for capability and that both the decision to dismiss and the procedure fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal considered the s15 EqA claim. It found dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that disability-related absence had been considered, but held the treatment was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining and sustaining regular attendance. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s98 ERA 1996
- s98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- West Midlands Cooperative Society Limited v Tipton
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Whitbread plc v Hall
- s6 Equality Act 2010
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Charlesworth v Dransfields Engineering Services Limited
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- British Labour Pump Co Ltd v Byrne
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.