Case 4104113/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104113/2020 Hearing at Edinburgh on 4, and May 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: J Grier Tribunal Member: L Brown Elizabeth Stewart v Sky Subscribers Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104113/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones’ Note
- Panel members
- J Grier, L Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104113/2020 Hearing at Edinburgh on 4, and May 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: J Grier Tribunal Member: L Brown Elizabeth Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a long-serving Sales Advisor, was dismissed after a lengthy absence from work. The respondent accepted that she was disabled at the material time and that her absence arose from her disability. The tribunal considered claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and discrimination arising from disability.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the earlier warnings related to persistent lateness and productivity concerns, not disability-related absence, and that the claimant had not clearly linked her lateness to disability at the time. It also found no requirement that she be 100% fit to work, no evidential basis for a transfer or bonus-scheme adjustment, no reasonable adjustment requiring flexible start and finish times in the circumstances, and no failure to allow counselling appointments.
On harassment, the tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Stewart-Cunneen and found that she did not make the alleged comments about needing fewer brain cells, did not call the claimant a skiver, and did not fail to support her. The tribunal found that the respondent had sought occupational health advice, implemented a phased return, allowed unplanned breaks without impact on performance statistics, and allowed time off for counselling.
On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related absence, but found that avoiding expense and reducing demands on the team were legitimate aims and that dismissal was proportionate. It relied on the length of absence, the lack of information about any return date, and the claimant's failure to engage with management correspondence during the absence. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal considered the disciplinary procedure, alleged 100% fitness requirement or transfer, flexibility in start and finish times, bonus scheme, and counselling appointments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected the alleged comments and found the claimant's manager did not fail to provide support in respect of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related absence, but the tribunal found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- provision, criterion or practice
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.