Dr J Koechlin v Represented by: Mr B Duncan - Blackadders Global Voices Limited — 2024

Dr J Koechlin worked for Global Voices Ltd from 25 April 2008 until 22 April 2025. She was diagnosed with cancer on 6 June 2024 and the respondent accepted that she had disability status from that date. The tribunal found the witnesses generally credible and accepted that the respondent had identified a projected year-end loss and had begun a redundancy exercise in late summer 2024. The 24 October 2024 complaint was withdrawn during the hearing and removed from the issues.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996 was the reason for dismissal, but held that the procedure was not reasonable within section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that consultation had not begun at a formative stage, the claimant was not given sufficient information to participate meaningfully in the wider plan, and the process did not remain open to changes or alternatives to the removal of her role. The dismissal was therefore unfair. However, the tribunal also found that, even if the procedural defects had been cured, the claimant would still have been dismissed on the same date, so there was no compensatory award under Polkey. The only monetary award on the dismissal claim was a basic award balance of £408.50 after offsetting the statutory redundancy payment already received.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the email of 1 November 2024 telling the claimant not to attend a client meeting was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely her sickness absence and recovery from cancer treatment. The respondent had a legitimate aim of supporting recovery, but the tribunal held that the step was not proportionate because less intrusive alternatives were available, including a brief discussion or call. The tribunal therefore awarded £3,000 for injury to feelings plus interest at 8% per annum from 1 November 2024. The harassment complaint based on the same email failed because, although the conduct was related to disability, it was not reasonable for the claimant to regard it as violating her dignity or creating a hostile environment.