Case 3333432/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Lal v Driving & Vehicle Standards Agency — 2023
- Case reference
- 3333432/2018
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Ms B Robinson, Mr A Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Lal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a driving examiner with Adult Onset Still's Disease, brought claims about events from 2010 onwards, including the 2017 Barnet LDTM CDO appointment, attendance management, the handling of notebook/data concerns in 2018, suspension, dismissal, and the appeal. The tribunal accepted that she had a disability and that the respondent had already put in place adjustments including reduced 'one on, one off' testing and disability adjustment leave. It also held that there was no conduct extending over a period for limitation purposes and no basis to extend time for events before 26 June 2018.
The tribunal rejected the equality claims. It found that the 2010 annual leave and medical appointment issue did not amount to adverse treatment, that Mrs Vear-Altog was appointed to the Barnet LDTM CDO because she scored higher, and that the 4 October 2017 meeting, the written improvement warning of 26 October 2017, and the appeal rejection were properly handled. It accepted that the attendance and driving-test requirements were PCPs, but held that the respondent's existing adjustments were sufficient. It also held that suspension and dismissal were not PCPs for section 20 purposes, and it found no evidence that any of those matters, or the investigation into the notebook/data issue, were because of race or disability.
On victimisation, the tribunal treated the claimant's 2010 employment tribunal claim as a protected act, but found that the notebook/data disclosures were not protected acts for the purposes relied on. On whistleblowing, it accepted that the January/February 2017 short-testing allegation was a protected disclosure because it could endanger road safety, but held that the sat-nav complaint and the notebook/data complaints were not protected disclosures. The tribunal found that Mr Perkins, Mr Day and Mr Williams acted for the reasons they gave, and that the claimant was dismissed for conduct relating to the handling and copying of sensitive data, not because of any protected act or protected disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Section 98 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and was fair under section 98(4). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 EqA 2010 claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability; the tribunal held the 2010 annual leave issue was not adverse treatment and the later warning, appeal rejection, notebook issue, suspension and dismissal were not because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 20/21 EqA 2010 reasonable adjustments claim; the tribunal accepted the attendance and driving-test PCPs but held the respondent's existing adjustments were sufficient and that suspension and dismissal were not PCPs. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Section 13 EqA 2010 direct race discrimination claim; the tribunal found no evidence that the LDTM appointment, investigation, warning, suspension or dismissal were because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 13 EqA 2010 direct disability discrimination claim; the tribunal found no evidence that the LDTM appointment, investigation, warning, suspension or dismissal were because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.136 EqA 2010 burden of proof
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- s.15 EqA 2010 justification
- s.20(3) EqA 2010 reasonable adjustments
- s.27 EqA 2010 victimisation
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Burchell test
- Strouthos v London Underground Ltd
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah
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.