Member Grime Tribunal Member Cardownie Ms L Lee v Bield Housing & Care — 2026

The Tribunal found that Ms Lee was disabled within s.6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of post-herpetic neuralgia. Without prescribed medication, the condition caused pain, pressure in her head, blurred vision and nausea, and could require her to lie in a dark room. These effects were substantial and long-term. The Tribunal did not, however, accept that she had shown any hearing loss or impairment, or that speaking more loudly was an effect of her neuralgia.

The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. Ms Lee said that she sometimes spoke loudly because of her disability and that Bield Housing & Care treated her unfavourably by accusing her of speaking loudly or shouting and relying on this when progressing to a disciplinary hearing. The Tribunal found that she had not established the required link between her disability and any tendency to speak more loudly.

The reasonable-adjustments complaint was also dismissed. The Tribunal did not find that the respondent operated the asserted provision, criterion or practice of using a closed disciplinary process without considering health conditions. Richard Young recorded Ms Lee's account that neuralgia might cause her to speak more loudly and included the meeting notes with his investigation report. The complaint would also have failed because Ms Lee had not shown that neuralgia affected her hearing or made her speak louder, so the asserted substantial disadvantage was not established and the adjustment duty was not triggered.

On constructive dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that Ms Lee resigned on 16 August 2024 after reading the witness statements attached to the investigation report and that she had not affirmed the contract after doing so. It found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to investigate concerns raised about her conduct and that Mr Young conducted a reasonable and thorough investigation. The allegations were put to Ms Lee, safeguards on confidentiality were imposed, an impartial manager was appointed for the planned disciplinary hearing, and Andrew Moore was removed from that role after she raised concerns. His statement on 2 May 2024 that the allegations could amount to gross misconduct was corrected immediately by HR and repeated assurances were given that gross misconduct was not being considered.

The Tribunal rejected the other matters relied on as establishing a breach of trust and confidence. It found that the omission of Ms Lee's role from a salary scale was an inadvertent formatting error, the proposed restructure had not been implemented when she resigned, and providing the investigation report and witness evidence was a required part of the disciplinary process. None of the established acts, alone or together, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. Ms Lee was therefore not constructively or wrongfully dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.