Case 3325832/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J R O’Day v The Dominic Barberi Multi Academy Company — 2021
- Case reference
- 3325832/2019
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Panel members
- Mrs C Carr, Dr C Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J R O’Day
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the reserved liability judgment sent on 9 December 2021, the tribunal dismissed direct disability discrimination but upheld two reasonable-adjustments claims and a claim of discrimination arising in connection with disability. It found the relevant unlawful acts formed a continuing series between 12 March and 22 November 2018, and noted that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent; she later resigned on 21 July 2019.
On remedy, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had significant pre-existing mental health difficulties, including a history of depression, but found that the failure to make reasonable adjustments when the summer 2018 timetable was imposed tipped her from managing to attend work into sickness absence. It further found that the disciplinary investigation started on 15 June 2018 caused a step change in her mental health. The tribunal held that the claimant's inability to work until 19 May 2022 flowed from that psychiatric injury, and that the exacerbation of her condition lasted about four years.
The tribunal declined to award a separate sum for psychiatric injury, holding that its impact was reflected in the injury to feelings award. It placed the case in the middle Vento band and awarded 3,000 for injury to feelings, plus interest, and it also awarded financial loss for past and future earnings and pension loss. In assessing future loss, it applied contingencies for the prospect that no mutually acceptable timetable would have been reached, a 50% chance of retirement at 65 from 31 August 2019, and the reduced prospect of remaining in full-time employment to age 70, producing total compensation of 70,943.15 subject to grossing up for tax.
The tribunal rejected aggravated damages, finding no high-handed, oppressive, malicious or insulting conduct and no separate additional impact beyond the injury to feelings award. It also rejected any reduction under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992, finding no unreasonable failure by the claimant to bring a grievance.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed in the reserved liability judgment sent on 9 December 2021. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments found in relation to the short-notice allocation of subjects and lessons for summer term 2018. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments found in relation to the attendance requirement / managing attendance sanction and the failure to facilitate a meeting with the Executive Head before the formal sickness absence process. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising in connection with disability found in respect of the disciplinary investigation started on 15 June 2018 and the letter of 13 November 2018 inviting the claimant to a stage 1 informal meeting under the sickness absence policy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £70,943
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £36,398
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- Armitage, Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson
- MOD v Cannock
- Alexander v The Home Office
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No. 2)
- Da'Bell v NSPCC
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd
- Essa v Laing Ltd
- Chagger v Abbey National plc
- Thaine v LSE
- BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.