Case 4104868/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member J Burnett Tribunal Member R McPherson Ms K Downes v , Solicitor Western Isles Health Board — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104868/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge Tribunal
- Panel members
- J Burnett, R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J Burnett Tribunal Member R McPherson Ms K Downes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant’s only claim was disability discrimination by way of a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of diabetes. The pleaded PCP was a requirement that dental nurses work particular shift patterns without a break, and the proposed adjustment was guaranteed break times so that she could manage her diabetes.
The tribunal heard detailed evidence about the way the dental centre operated. It found that nurses were generally given morning and afternoon breaks, with a lunchtime break guaranteed, and that breaks were arranged opportunistically around patient appointments, cancellations, early finishes, floating nurses and other cover. It found that on the specific dates relied on by the claimant, 5 December 2018 and 9 January 2019, the records showed she had time to take breaks and did in fact do so. It also accepted evidence that she was told she could leave surgery to take a break if necessary, including by abandoning a procedure mid-appointment if required.
Applying sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the respondent did not apply the PCP advanced by the claimant. Its view was that the respondent did not require dental nurses to work without breaks, and that the claimant had been given additional assurances that she could take a break whenever she needed one. It therefore found that the case failed at the first hurdle. The tribunal also said that even if the claim were reframed as a complaint about not being given breaks at precise times each day, the medical evidence did not show that precise timing was necessary, and such an adjustment would not in any event have been reasonable in light of the operational constraints described in the evidence.
The tribunal referred to the PCP authorities discussed in submissions, including Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh, Carrera v United First Partners Research, Wolfe v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood and Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders. It dismissed the claim in full and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Sole claim was a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, based on an alleged PCP requiring dental nurses to work particular shift patterns without a break. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- PCP analysis
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Carrera v United First Partners Research
- Wolfe v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust
- Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood
- Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders
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.