Mr M Bradley v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust: 2410258/2019
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2020 |
| Citation | 2410258/2019 |
| Published date | 23 October 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2410258/19
Code - V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr M Bradley
Respondent:
North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at:
Manchester
On:
1 - 4 September 2020
Before:
Employment Judge Phil Allen
Mr J King
Ms C Clover
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent:
In person
Mr J English, solicitor
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant did have disabilities as defined by the Equality Act 2010 of:
Dyslexia; and, from 24 September 2018, PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder);
2. The claimant’s claim for direct discrimination because of disability is not
successful;
3. The claimant’s claim for discrimination arising from disability was not entered
at the Employment Tribunal within the period required by Section 123 of the
Equality Act 2010 and it is not just and equitable to extend time;
4. The claimant’s claim for indirect discrimination in relation to disability was not
brought within the period required by Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and
it is not just and equitable to extend time;
5. The claimant’s claim in respect of the alleged failure to make reasonable
adjustments was not brought within the time required by Section 123 of the
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2410258/19
Code - V
2
Equality Act 2010, but was brought within such further period as the
Employment Tribunal considers just and equitable and accordingly the
Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the complaint;
6. The respondent did breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments as
required by Sections 21 and 22 of the Equality Act in the period from 2
November 2018 until 28 February 2019;
7. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent breached its duty to make
reasonable adjustments in respect of treatment does not succeed as it is not
in the employment field and/or falls in the exception contained in paragraph
19 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010; and
8. The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages does not need to be
determined as the respondent has paid the amount claimed since the claim
was issued.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent (and its predecessor
organisation) from 16 February 2015. The claimant brought claims for
disability discrimination (direct discrimination, discrimination arising from
disability, indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments).
The claimant relies upon alleged disabilities of Dyslexia and PTSD.
2. The claimant also brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim in relation
to alleged failure to pay him injury allowance, payable under a scheme
operated by the respondent (in common with other NHS Trusts). However,
after the Tribunal claim was entered (22 July 2019), the respondent decided
(on or about 1 November 2019) to pay and did pay the claimant injury
allowance, which was backdated to the date it was first due.
Claims and Issues
3. Prior to the Employment Tribunal hearing the claimant had been represented
by solicitors. Following a Preliminary Hearing (case management) before
Employment Judge Ainscough on 1 November 2019, the claimant provided
further and better particulars of his claim (64–73) and a disability impact
statement (74–81), and the respondent provided an amended grounds of
response (105–113).
4. Based upon the claimant’s further particulars, an agreed list of issues was
prepared by the respondent and agreed by the solicitors instructed by the
claimant. That identified the issues as outlined in below (number one not
being an issue which needs to be included):
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2410258/19
Code - V
3
Disability
2. The Claimant claims to be disabled by reason of Dyslexia and PTSD
(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). The Respondent has not conceded
that the Claimant is a disabled person by reason of either condition.
The Respondent concedes that it was aware that the Claimant had
dyslexia from at least 13 September 2017 onwards. In relation to the
Claimant's claim that he is disabled by reason of dyslexia:
a. Is the Claimant a disabled person by reason of dyslexia?
b. If so, on what date was the Respondent aware (or reasonably
ought to have been aware) that he was disabled (if not 13
September 2017)?
3. In relation to the Claimant's claim that he is disabled by reason of
PTSD:
a. Is the Claimant a disabled person by reason of PTSD?
b. If so, on what date was the Respondent aware (or reasonably
ought to have been aware) that he was disabled?
4. The Respondent was aware that the Claimant suffered from a stress-
related condition from on or after 24 September 2018, and that he had
been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD on 18 March 2019.
Limitation
5. The Claimant has raised claims of disability discrimination outside the
usual 3-month time limit for presenting claims. The Claimant contacted
ACAS on 12 July 2019, and therefore any acts or events before 13
April 2019 fall outside that limit. The Claimant's complaints regarding
clinical supervision in his CAMHS role and his dealings with Ms
Wilshaw predate 16 October 2017.
6. Has the Claimant brought his complaints of discrimination within the
appropriate time limits in accordance with Section 123 of the Equality
Act 2010? In particular:
a. What are the dates of the alleged acts of discrimination?
b. Were the acts or events that would otherwise fall outside of the
limitation period part of a continuing course of conduct extending
over a period of time that would therefore be within the limitation
period?
c. If not, would it be just and equitable for the tribunal to consider
those complaints?
To continue reading
Request your trial