Member R Henderson Tribunal Member L Grime Ms M v AMC Safety Management Ltd — 2022

The claimant started work for AMC Safety Management Ltd on 9 December 2019 as a health and safety consultant on a zero-hours contract. The tribunal accepted that she had been on antidepressants, had a GP fit note for anxiety and depression from 13 November 2019 to 13 January 2020, and later produced evidence from Penumbra and SAMH, but it found the contemporaneous evidence from the employment period was limited and that she had not given the respondent clear information about any mental health impairment or its effects.

On disability, the tribunal held that the claimant had just established that she met the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability at the relevant time, applying the approach in Goodwin v The Patent Office, J v DLA Piper UK LLP, Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited and the 2011 Guidance on the Definition of Disability. However, it found that the respondent had no actual knowledge and no constructive knowledge of any disability. The claimant had not told Ms Crossley or Mr McClusky that she had anxiety or depression, and the texts and other exchanges relied on did not put the respondent on notice of a mental health impairment. For that reason the disability discrimination claims failed.

On the sex complaints, the tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that Ms Crossley used the words 'panties in a twist' or 'lacy panties in a twist', and said that even if such words had been used they would not amount to sexual harassment on the facts found. The indirect sex discrimination claim was based on a PCP that staff had to work full time and that anyone unable to do so would not continue in the role. The tribunal accepted that the PCP placed women at a particular disadvantage because women are more likely to have childcare responsibilities, and it accepted that the claimant was affected by that disadvantage. It nevertheless found the respondent had shown a legitimate aim and had established justification: as a small business dependent on client bookings for courses and audits of varying length, it needed consultants available on a full-time basis, and it did not have other suitable part-time work. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it did not believe the claimant's later email saying she could return full time.

All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made. The tribunal noted that this was not an unfair dismissal claim and that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service for such a claim.