Claimant v Training for Care — 2020

Ms Campbell worked for Training for Care from 30 September 2008 and the tribunal found that she was disabled for the purposes of s6 EqA by reason of three conditions. The respondent accepted knowledge of two conditions, and the tribunal held that it had constructive knowledge of the ear/hearing condition because it knew she was having regular ENT appointments. The case proceeded as claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and constructive unfair dismissal.

On the discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the claim that the 2018 restructure denied the claimant promotion opportunities in a way that was discriminatory. It found that no one in the Administration Team had a promotion opportunity in that restructure, which was confined to reducing the senior management team and changing some professional staff titles. The tribunal also found that, to the extent the claimant had been demoted, that arose in May 2017 when the Course & Claims Assistant left and the claimant chose not to have a replacement recruited, so she no longer had line management responsibility. The later written job description changes in 2018 were held to reflect that earlier reality rather than conceal a demotion.

The tribunal further found that the comment that the claimant's attendance rate was 80% was made in the context of arranging cover for her work and did not amount to discriminatory treatment. It did not accept that AG disclosed the claimant's bowel condition to Mark Le May or to colleagues in senior management, and it held that the comments relied on from LJ and HM did not prove that such disclosure had occurred. On the s15 claim, the tribunal held that the reasons for the relevant treatment were cost and the claimant's decision not to train a replacement assistant, not something arising in consequence of disability. The claims of disability discrimination were therefore dismissed.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant had drafted her resignation before the meeting with JW on 28 June 2018, but that JW's refusal to answer her questions immediately and request that she wait until AG returned from holiday were reasonable in the circumstances. Those matters were not, by themselves, repudiatory breaches, and they did not form part of a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence under Malik. No monetary award was made.