Mr A Miah, Counsel For the v Mr M Bloom Solicitor-Partner — 2022

The claimant, Ms Elona Onibere, worked for Rodman Pearce Solicitors Ltd as an Assistant Solicitor in the Housing department from 10 December 2014. The tribunal found that by February 2019 the Housing department was not generating enough fees to support even one member of staff, and that after the supervising solicitor left on 26 April 2019 the respondent could no longer take on new housing legal aid work. The claimant became ill on 14 February 2019, was diagnosed with cancer on 1 March 2019, and told the respondent on 8 April 2019 that she would require chemotherapy.

The tribunal found that the notice of termination dated 29 July 2019 was not sent when alleged, and that the termination letter dated 30 August 2019 was also not sent on that date or the following day. It accepted the claimant's evidence that she first received the termination letter as an email attachment on 12 September 2019, after she had challenged her dismissal. The tribunal held that Mr Akilo should have consulted with her before ending employment, and that these failures were not merely procedural but rendered the dismissal substantively unfair. It concluded that, had a fair consultation process taken place, she would probably have been given notice and her employment would have ended on 31 October 2019.

On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal held that the respondent would have dismissed a non-disabled comparator, or a comparator who had been absent for 26 weeks, under clause 13.5 of the contract. It therefore found no less favourable treatment because of disability. By contrast, the claims under section 15 and section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant's sickness absence arose in consequence of her cancer, that dismissal was because of the length of that absence, and that the respondent's justification case failed because dismissal without consultation was not proportionate. It also found that clause 13.5 put disabled employees at a particular disadvantage and that the same proportionality defence failed on the indirect discrimination claim.

The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was also upheld. The tribunal treated clause 13.5 as the relevant PCP, accepted that disapplying it was a reasonable step, and recorded that the claimant was ready, willing and able to return to work from 16 September 2019. It also noted that, given the state of the Housing department and the lack of private housing work, compensation on the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims was likely to be limited. The breach of contract claim succeeded because the claimant was entitled to one month's notice, had received only one week's pay, and was awarded £1,142.61 gross in notice pay. The case was listed for a remedy hearing on 11 April 2022 for the remaining claims.