Miss L Vaz v The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust T/a The Convent of Jesus and Mary Language College: 3323891/2017
| Judgment Date | 19 June 2018 |
| Citation | 3323891/2017 |
| Published date | 10 July 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 3323891/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Miss L Vaz v
The Diocese of Westminster
Academy Trust t/a The Convent of
Jesus and Mary
Language College
Heard at: Watford On: 5 to 8 February 2018
12 & 13 March 2018 (in Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Bedeau
Members: Ms S Hamill, Mr R Leslie
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mrs B Huggins, Counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is not well-founded and is dismissed.
2. The claimant was, at all material times, a disabled person.
3. The claimant’s claim of direct disability discrimination is not well-founded
and is dismissed.
4. The claimant’s claim of discrimination arising in consequence of disability is
not well-founded and is dismissed.
5. The claimant’s claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments is not well-
founded and is dismissed.
6. The provisional remedy hearing listed on 16 July 2018 is hereby vacated.
Case Number: 3323891/2017
2
REASONS
1. By a claim form presented to the tribunal on 20 March 2017, the claimant
made claims of unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, arising
out her employment with the respondent as a Lead Learning Mentor.
2. In the response presented to the tribunal on 13 May 2017, it is averred that
the cl aimant was dismissed for reasons of capability. Allegations of
discriminatory treatment being denied.
3. Before Employment Judge Hyams, at the preliminary hearing held on 16
June 2017, the Learned Judge ordered that the claimant should provide
further information to the respondent by Friday 21 July 2017 in relation to
her unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and direct race discrimination
claims. Orders were also given for her to disclose her medical records as
the issue of her disability was not conceded by the respondent.
4. There was a further case management held on 6 December 2017 by
Employment Judge Wyeth. The claimant, before him, clarified the claims
against the r espondent as: unfair dismissal; direct discrimination because
of race; discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable
adjustments. The issues are set out below as agreed between the parties.
The Issues
5. Unfair dismissal claim
5.1 What was the reason for the dismissal? The respondent asserts that it
was a reason related to capability w hich is a potentially fair reason for
section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
5.2 If capability was the reason for dismissal, di d the respondent f ollow a
fair procedure leading up to that decision?
5.3 Was the decision to dismiss a fair sanction, that is, was it within the
reasonable range of responses for a reasonable employer?
5.4 Does the respondent prove that if it had adopted a fair procedure the
claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event and/or to what
extent and when?
6. Disability
6.1 The claimant relies upon a mental impairment of anxiety and
depression.
6.2 Does that impairment have a substantial adverse effect on the
claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?
6.3 If so, is that effect long term? In particular, when did it start and:
Case Number: 3323891/2017
3
6.3.1 has the impairment lasted for at least 12 months?
6.3.2 is or was the impairment likely to last at least 12 months or the
rest of the claimant’s life, if less than 12 months?
6.4 Are any measures being taken to treat or correct the impairment? The
claimant h as stated that she is not on any medication but has
undertaken talking therapies in the past and has referred herself last
week to a further talking therapy session/s.
6.5 But for that measure (talking therapy) would the impairment be likely to
have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out
normal day-to-day activities?
6.6 The relevant time f or assessing whether the claimant h ad/has a
disability (namely, when the discrimination is alleged to have occurred)
is from 11 March 2016 to 16 December 2016 (the date of the
claimant’s dismissal).
7. Section 13: Direct discrimination because of race
7.1 The claimant relies on the fact that she is mixed race, namely
Jamaican, Tanzanian, Goan and Swiss.
7.2 The claimant says that her dismissal and the process leading up to it
was less favourable treatment because of her race.
7.3 With regard to the dismissal, has the respondent treated the claimant,
as alleged, less favourably than it treated or would have treated the
comparators? The claimant relies on an actual comparator Ms Laura
Normoyle, and a hypothetical comparator.
7.4 If so, has the claimant proved primary facts from which the tribunal
could properly and fairly conclude that the difference in treatment was
because of the protected characteristic?
7.5 If so, what is the respondent’s explanation? Does it prove a non-
discriminatory reason for any proven treatment?
8. Section 15: Discrimination arising from disability
8.1 The allegation of unfavourable treatment as “something arising in
consequence of the claimant’s disability” falling within section 39
Equality Act, is the claimant’s dismissal. No comparator is needed.
8.2 Did the respondent dismiss the claimant because of the “something
arising” in consequence of the disability?
To continue reading
Request your trial