Case 8001100/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Campbell v Lothian Health Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001100/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant remained employed by the respondent and was accepted to be disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, from 4 January 2024 to 7 June 2024 that the requirement to fulfil contractual duties and work allocated hours placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage by increasing stress and anxiety and making it more challenging for her to complete her work.
The Tribunal upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint in relation to several adjustments: more time to gather thoughts and plan the clinical day; appropriate time between visits, breaks, bathroom access and removal of timed back-to-back visits; matching duties to function by minimising lower-limb wound visits; compressed days/flexible working; removal of hot desking and provision of quieter seating; and removing workload allocation from the central spreadsheet process. It found that other asserted adjustments, including monthly supervision, day-to-day support, increased communication and written review summaries, had not been shown to have been withheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaint because it covered the same ground as the reasonable adjustments complaint and was more appropriately addressed under that duty. On harassment, it upheld the December 2022 comment that everyone was sick of the claimant, finding it related to her bladder impairment and medical appointment, and upheld SC's 6 June 2024 comment that maybe another area would be better able to support her. The other harassment allegations were dismissed because the conduct was not established, was not related to disability, or did not objectively have the proscribed effect.
For remedy, the Tribunal awarded agreed financial loss for the half-pay period from 14 July to 17 September 2024, with interest. It awarded injury to feelings of £5,000 for the December 2022 harassment and £15,000 for the 2024 failure to make reasonable adjustments and June 2024 harassment, applied a 10% Acas Code uplift to the 2024 injury award, and added interest.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded to the extent set out in the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Two allegations of harassment related to disability succeeded: the December 2022 comment by Colleague A and SC's comment on 6 June 2024 that maybe another area would be better able to support the claimant. Other harassment allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed; the Tribunal treated the pleaded matters as more appropriately addressed as failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,486
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £768
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
21 references- s15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Land Registry v Houghton
- Hardys & Hansons v Lax
- s20 Equality Act 2010
- s21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- Logo v Payone GMBH
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- s136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.