Case 8000036/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Members M McAllister Tribunal Member E Farrell Mrs M-E Cross v Glasgow City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000036/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- M McAllister, E Farrell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members M McAllister Tribunal Member E Farrell Mrs M-E Cross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought Equality Act 2010 complaints relying on disability. The respondent accepted that she was disabled. The Tribunal found that the respondent's witnesses were credible and reliable, and preferred their evidence where it conflicted with the claimant's evidence.
The direct discrimination and harassment complaints concerned alleged pressure to work through breaks or late, an alleged comment that the respondent would not have hired the claimant if it knew about her disabilities, and an allegation that Yvonne Rice did not take her complaints seriously. The Tribunal found no evidence that requests for additional visits were because of or related to disability, accepted Pauline McGill's evidence that the alleged hiring comment was not made, and found insufficient evidence linking Yvonne Rice's conduct to disability.
For victimisation, the Tribunal treated a statement made on 4 December 2023 about ADHD medication and breaks as capable of being a protected act, but found earlier alleged detriments could not have been caused by it and accepted the respondent's explanations for later events. The constructive dismissal claim under the Equality Act was also dismissed because the underlying discrimination and victimisation complaints failed, and the Tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination allegations under s13 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegations under s26 Equality Act 2010 related to disability were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that a comment on 4 December 2023 was capable of being a protected act, but found the victimisation allegations not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive dismissal claim was pursued under the Equality Act; the Tribunal found no unlawful discrimination and no fundamental breach of contract. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon detriment test
- s23 Equality Act 2010
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Bahl v The Law Society
- Igen v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- UNITE the Union v Nailard
- Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- s27 Equality Act 2010
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
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.