Miss T Kapasi v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: 2201484/2019 and 2204769/2019
| Judgment Date | 09 July 2021 |
| Citation | 2201484/2019 and 2204769/2019 |
| Published date | 22 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Numbers: 2201484/2019 & 2204769/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Miss T Kapasi v Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea
Heard at: London Central On: 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 November
and 1 and 2 December 2020
Before: Employment Judge E Burns
Ms J Cameron
Ms J Grant
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr B Uduje (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Ms C Casserley (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that all of the claimant’s
claims fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
CLAIMS
1. These are claims arising from the claimant’s employment with the
respondent from 1 January 2014 to the date of her dismissal on 3 October
2019. The claimant presented her first claim on 30 April 2019. She
presented her second claim on 5 November 2019.
THE ISSUES
2. Although a draft list of issues had been discussed and agreed at a case
management hearing held on 20 February 2020, the claimant sought to add
three additional issues at the start of the hearing, before we commenced
hearing evidence. One of the issues required a minor amendment to the
claimant’s pleaded case. The tribunal allowed this. We gave oral reasons
for our decision.
Case Numbers: 2201484/2019 & 2204769/2019
2
3. The issues to be determined were as follows:
Was C disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act
2010?
(1) The respondent admits that the claimant was a disabled person at
the relevant times by chronic pain syndrome but does not admit the
additional disabilities upon which the claimant seeks to rely – Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and stress, anxiety and depression.
Knowledge of C's Disability
(2) The respondent admits that it was aware of the claimant’s disability
(chronic pain syndrome) from the point at which occupational health
advised that it would meet the definition of disability in the Equality
Act 2010, namely 28.07.16
Reasonable adjustments (ss. 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010)
(3) Did the respondent apply to the claimant:
(a) a requirement in line management meetings [on employees] to
attend to their own contemporaneous notes;
(b) the Improving Work Performance Policy; and/or
(c) the Sickness Absence Management Policy?
(4) If so, did all or any of those requirements/practices constitute
provisions, criteria or practices within s. 20(3) Equality Act?
(5) If so, did the PCPs or any of them place the claimant at a substantial
disadvantage in comparison to persons who are not disabled, in that:
(a) in relation to (3)(a), her pain/restricted movement in her arms and
hand (and other associated difficulties) impaired her ability to take
notes;
(b) in relation to (3)(b), the claimant was more likely because of her
disability to be absent than non disabled employees and her
disability restricted the speed at which she could complete work;
(c) in relation to (3)(c), the claimant’s disabilities caused her to be
absent from work more often than people who do not have her
disability?
(6) If so, did the respondent know (or could it reasonably have been
expected to know) that the PCPs it applied were likely to place the
claimant at those disadvantages?
Case Numbers: 2201484/2019 & 2204769/2019
3
(7) If so, did the respondent fail to take such steps as were reasonable to
avoid the above disadvantages? The claimant suggests the following
steps:
(a) In relation to (5)(a) the provision of a scribe or a recording facility;
(b) In relation to 5(b), delaying implementation of performance
management and/or adjusting the work targets;
(c) In relation to 5(b), adjusting the trigger points for disability related
absence, discounting disability related sickness absence caused
by pursuit of the IWPP, altering working hours or content of EP
role, allowing period of disability leave for recovering
(8) If not, was the claimant subjected to a detriment by any failures to take
reasonable adjustments, contrary to s.39(2)(d)?
Discrimination Arising from Disability (Section 15 of the Equality Act
2010)
(9) Were the following unfavourable treatment:
(a) Limiting the scope of the claimant’s duties to EHC Assessment
Reports in 17.12.17, formalised on 03.09.18;
(b) Requiring her to meet work and attendance targets set the
Operational Work Plan presented to her on 22.08.18;
(c) Invoking informal performance monitoring on 3 December 2018;
(d) Sickness absence caution on 6 December 2018;
(e) Effective suspension of her role on 20 December 2018;
(f) Formal performance warning on 04.02.19
(g) dismissal on 03.10.19?
(10) If so, did the following form any part of the reasons for that
unfavourable treatment:
(a) the claimant’s sickness absence from September 2016 to
September 2017;
(b) the claimant’s inability to deliver work to the timescale in the work
plan;
(c) in addition, in relation to her dismissal, her sickness absence in
2018 and 2019?
To continue reading
Request your trial