In person (assisted by her husband Mr Sandford) For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant's husband suffered a stroke in April 2017 and that the respondent accepted he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant's case was that she was treated less favourably because of that disability, including in relation to the decision to dismiss her and the events of 9 July 2018 when she left work to collect her husband after he called her because he was unwell.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a build-up of concerns about the claimant's performance after she moved from her private client department role to reception in February 2018, including the speed and accuracy of post handling, client interactions, helping with meetings and general confidence in the role. It found that those concerns were genuinely held by the directors and HR manager, and that the decision to dismiss had already been made at a directors' meeting on 28 June 2018, before the events of 9 July and before the dismissal meeting on 12 July 2018. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was caused by perceived poor performance and attitude on reception, not by the claimant's husband's disability.

The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the claimant was treated unfavourably on 9 July 2018. It found that Mr Brace simply told her she should go to her husband immediately, that she was not required to return that afternoon, and that there was no adverse treatment connected to her husband's condition. The tribunal noted that the respondent's handling of the matter, especially its refusal to give a proper written explanation for the dismissal, did it no credit, and that the process before dismissal was poor. However, those procedural failings did not persuade the tribunal that the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, so the claim failed and was dismissed.