Claimant v Respondent — 2026

Employment Judge Langridge, sitting alone, determined liability in Miss L A Wennington’s claims against Watson Woodhouse Limited. The Tribunal dismissed her unfair dismissal claim, held that she was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, dismissed her claims under sections 15 and 20/21 of that Act, and dismissed her section 27 victimisation claim. The hearing was confined to liability, so no monetary remedy was determined.

The claimant relied on perimenopausal symptoms experienced principally between February and October 2022, including disturbed sleep, fatigue, migraines and difficulty concentrating at work. HRT prescribed on 3 October 2022 provided immediate relief, with a later increase in dosage addressing a recurrence of symptoms. The Tribunal found that she had been impaired to a limited degree, but that the evidence concentrated on her specialised work as a civil litigation solicitor and did not establish a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It therefore found no mental impairment satisfying section 6.

The section 15 claim consequently failed. In its alternative conclusions, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not established that an inability to maintain acceptable professional performance arose in consequence of disability. It also found that dismissal resulted from the respondent’s concerns about her conduct, rather than from the alleged disability-related performance issue.

For the reasonable-adjustments claim, the respondent accepted a PCP of expecting solicitors to work beyond contractual hours when necessary, but the claimant conceded that she had never been required to work overtime. The Tribunal found no evidence that the PCP was applied to her or placed her at a substantial disadvantage. It also found that the respondent had no knowledge of an alleged disability or its effects until the discrimination grievance of 22 April 2024. Alternatively, any duty arising while symptoms were experienced would have ended by October 2022, making the claim out of time, with no basis established for a just and equitable extension.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that conduct was the genuine reason for dismissal. The disciplinary concerns included failures or refusals to follow instructions concerning limitation amnesties, billing and requested reports; the claimant’s conduct towards Head of Department Sarah Magson at the inquest-team meeting on 13 March 2024; failures to progress and maintain client files; communications with clients; and advice given on a client’s claim. The Tribunal found that the investigation was impartial and reasonable, that the material facts were largely not disputed, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its conclusions.

The Tribunal expressed concern that the investigation report and dismissal letter did not refer to mitigation and that the discrimination grievance had been kept separate from the disciplinary process. It nevertheless accepted Sarah Kane’s evidence that she read the claimant’s written statement before deciding the outcome and considered the asserted effects of perimenopause, the LEAP system, caring responsibilities and the claimant’s previous record. It found no predetermination and concluded that both the original dismissal and the appeal decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.