Case 4100395/2017 · Employment Tribunal

E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100395/2017 Held in Glasgow on 11, 12, 13, and February and March 2019 (and deliberations on April 2019) Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Members: Mr I Poad Mr E Borowski Ms Zoe Lucas v Represented by: Ms M Gribbon -15 Solicitor Cosmeceuticals Limited — 2019

Case reference: 4100395/2017
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Doherty
Venue: Glasgow
Panel members: Mr I Poad, Mr E Borowski

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100395/2017 Held in Glasgow on 11, 12, 13, and February and March 2019 (and deliberations on April 2019) Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Members: Mr I Poad Mr E Borowski Ms Zoe Lucas

Respondent

Represented by: Ms M Gribbon -15 Solicitor Cosmeceuticals Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal accepted that Ms Lucas had multiple sclerosis and that Cosmeceuticals knew this by 2 March 2017. It found a deteriorating relationship between Ms Lucas and Ms Deacon, but concluded that the dismissal decision was taken around 7/8 August 2017 because of sales performance and probationary concerns, not because of disability-related absence, reluctance about travel, or the email about medical appointments. The dismissal was confirmed at the meeting on 16 August 2017 and by letter on 21 August 2017.

On the section 20/21 claim, the tribunal considered the pleaded PCPs. It held that the field-based requirement did not impose a daily field-only working pattern, that the appointments-per-day and sales-target expectations did not place Ms Lucas at a substantial disadvantage on the evidence, and that the Cambridge-to-Dunfermline journey engaged PCP4. However, it found no failure to make reasonable adjustments because the respondent agreed that Ms Lucas could break the journey with an overnight stop in Newcastle, which she accepted.

The harassment claim based on the 22 June, 27/30 June and 9 August 2017 interactions failed because the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the disputed calls and meeting, and because asking for proof of medical appointments did not amount to unwanted conduct with the required effect. The victimisation claim failed for the same reasons; the protected act relied on was Ms Lucas's reference to her MS on 22 June 2017, but the alleged detriments were not established. All claims under sections 15, 20/21, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Section 15 claim: dismissal was alleged to be because of disability-related absence on 10/11 May 2017, reluctance about the 22 June 2017 Cambridge journey, and the request for time off for medical appointments. The tribunal found the dismissal was for sales performance and probationary concerns, not because of something arising in consequence of disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Sections 20/21 claim. The claimant relied on PCP1 to PCP4, including being predominantly field based, three appointments per day, sales targets, and the Cambridge-to-Dunfermline driving requirement. The tribunal held PCP4 was engaged but found no failure to make reasonable adjustments because the respondent agreed an overnight stop in Newcastle; the other PCPs did not give rise to a proved substantial disadvantage requiring a different adjustment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The harassment claim relied on the 22 June 2017 telephone calls, the 27/30 June 2017 instructions, and the 9 August 2017 request for proof of medical appointments. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on the first two matters and held the request for proof of appointments did not amount to unwanted conduct with the required effect.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	The protected act relied on was the claimant's reference to her multiple sclerosis in the 22 June 2017 call. The alleged detriments were the same matters advanced as harassment, and the tribunal held they were not made out as victimisation.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.