C Sargent v Robinson Way Ltd: 2415272/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2022 |
| Date | 18 November 2022 |
| Published date | 29 November 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2415272/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
2415272/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Cara Sargent
Respondent: Robinson Way Limited
Heard at: Manchester On: 8-12 August 2022 and on 19
October 2022 (in chambers).
Before: Employment Judge Leach, Mrs M Dowling, Ms H Fletcher.
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr. S. Proffitt (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claims under the Equality Act do not succeed.
2. Although the claimant was unfairly (constructively) dismissed, she is not
entitled to any award
REASONS
A. Introduction
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent between November 2017 and
her resignation on 24 July 2020. She claims that she resigned from her employment
in circumstances that amounted to a constructive dismissal. She also raises various
complaints under the Equality Act 2010, including complaints of harassment,
victimisation and a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
2415272/2020
2
B. The hearing
2. The claimant represented herself at the hearing. The respondent was
represented by Mr Proffitt of counsel.
3. There were about 100 pages of witness statement evidence and a bundle of
documents ( Bundle) containing 750 or so pages. The parties suggested we spend
the whole of day one reading into the case, which we did.
4. The claimant gave evidence on day 2. The respondent’s witnesses gave
evidence on days 3 and 4. We heard submissions on day 5. We met in chambers on
19 October 2022 in order to reach our decision.
5. We heard evidence from the following:-
a. The claimant
b. Chloe Wimpress (CW) HR manager, employed by the respondent.
c. Agi Szeplaki (AS), HR Adviser.
d. Joanne Hall, Team manager who chaired a disciplinary hearing
concerning the claimant, in June 2020.
e. Ijeoma Igbokwe (“II”), in house legal counsel, who heard the claimant’s
appeal against the disciplinary sanction imposed by JH.
f. Michael Wilcock (MW) who carried out a disciplinary investigation in July
2020 into the claimant’s conduct.
6. In the course of the evidence the Tribunal identified some documents that it
wanted to see. One of these documents (the claimant’s contract of employment)
should have been in the bundle. The respondent had not been able to find the
claimant’s own contract and only able to produce a template. However the claimant
was able to locate her contract and we added this to the bundle.
7. We also asked to see some documents relating to an employee representative
forum that the respondent’s first witness told us about. This evidence was in response
to evidence from the claimant that there were no collective consultation arrangements
( whether with a Trade Union or an employee forum or similar) in place.
8. Reference below to page numbers are to the bundle of documents ( and
additions)
C. The issues
9. A list of issues had been identified at case management. Both parties confirmed
their agreement with this at the start of the hearing. We set out the list below (in italics)
with one or 2 comments ( not in italics).
2415272/2020
3
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – JURISDICTION
Section 123 Equality Act 2010
1. Are the Claimant’s claims of discrimination in time?
2. If the Claimant’s claims of discrimination are out of time, is it just and equitable to
extend time?
Comment - These jurisdiction points include consideration as to whether there was
conduct extending over a period – for the purposes of section 123(3) EQA.
DUTY TO MAKE REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS
Section 20 Equality Act 2010
3. Were the following a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) of the Respondent
within the meaning of section 20(3) Equality Act 2010?
3.1 The requirement to wear a headset to take calls;
3.2 The requirement to work in a hot desk environment;
3.3 The requirement to work in an open plan call centre style work space with no private
quiet space to retreat to and excessive noise levels; and
3.4 The Respondent’s policy that car parking spaces are allocated based on seniority.
Comment – The respondent accepts that 3.1 is a PCP that applied throughout the
claimant’s employment. The other PCPs relied are accepted by the respondent as
having applied at all relevant times up to 18 March 2020 (the start of the coronavirus
lockdown period).
4. Did the Respondent apply the PCP(s) to the Claimant?
5. Did the above PCP(s) place the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage as
compared with others who are not disabled, the disadvantage(s) being:
5.1 She was caused avoidable distress;
5.2 Her career at the Respondent was negatively impacted;
To continue reading
Request your trial