Mrs J Moore v Home Office: 2301170/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Published date | 20 April 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Citation | 2301170/2021 |
Case Number: 2301170/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms J Moore
Respondent: Home Office
Heard at: London South
On: 16,17,18,19 January 2023 (evidence); 20 January 2023, 7 and
13 February 2023 (Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Sekhon
Ms C Bonner
Mr R Singh
Representation
Claimant: Ms Grace, Counsel
Respondent: Mr Crawford, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claims of direct disability discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act
2010, and discrimination arising from disability (contrary to section 15 Equality
Act 2010) are not well founded and are dismissed.
2. The claim of failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments
contrary to section 20/21 Equality Act 2010 is not well founded and dismissed.
3. The claim of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 is not well
founded and dismissed.
REASONS
Background of the claim and this hearing
1. This is the reserved judgment with reasons following the hearing on 16, 17, 18, 19
January 2023 and subsequent days in Chambers listed above.
2. The claimant, Ms Moore, commenced working for the respondent, Home Office, on 26
March 2001 (nearly 22 years) and continues to work as a Senior Executive Officer as a
Country Manager for India and Bangladesh. The Home office is a government
department for immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, fire, counterterrorism, and
police.
Case Number: 2301170/2021
2
3. By claim form issued on 26 March 2021, the claimant makes complaints of disability
discrimination, specifically direct discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010), failure to
make reasonable adjustments (section 20/21 Equality Act 2010), discrimination arising
from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) and victimisation (section 27 Equality Act
2010).
4. The claimant stated she has suffered from depression since 2002/2003. It is accepted
by the respondent by letter dated 29 April 2022 that the claimant is a disabled person by
reason of depression at times material to this claim and that she has done so since 2009.
5. In the ET3, the respondent denies that the claimant has been discriminated against and
or treated detrimentally as alleged. The respondent does not accept that reasonable
adjustments were not made save that they accept that mentoring was not implemented,
however this decision was made further to a discussion with the claimant, and this did
not put her at a substantial disadvantage. The respondent denies that the failure to
uphold the grievance appeal against her sickness absence warning amounted to a
detriment. The claimant had a high level of sickness absence, and the respondent
asserts it was entitled to expect minimum levels of attendance from its employees.
6. With an ACAS certificate dated 15 January 2021 to 26 February 2021, the respondent
asserts that the Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to hear any discrimination claims in so
far it relates to acts or omissions that took place prior to 16 October 2020 and they deny
that the allegations amount to conduct extending over a period within in the meaning of
section 123 (3) (a) of the Equality Act 2010.
7. The Tribunal were provided with the following: -
(a) Ms Moore’s witness statement dated 22 December 2022 and undated statements
on behalf of the respondent from (1) Mr Mahbub Uddin. (2) Mr James Stephenson;
3) Mr Phillip Smith. Mr Crawford asked each witness to sign and date their
statement if they accepted this was accurate before they gave evidence. The
Tribunal clarified with both parties, that the witness statements were exchanged on
22 December 2022.
(c) An agreed evidence Bundle – indexed with 1142 pages.
(d) An additional Bundle of Documents (pages 613-632) which is a transcript of an
interview that took place on 5 November 2020 with the claimant and Sharon Jones,
Investigating manager for the Professional Standards Unit. The Tribunal were
informed that this was an unredacted transcript copy of the interview in the bundle.
Having clarified the matter with the parties, the Tribunal was advised that this
document could be ignored as a redacted copy was in the bundle and both Counsel
had no intention of referring to it during their cross examination of the witnesses.
(e) Respondent’s Chronology
(f) Claimant’s Position statement.
10. There was a case management hearing before Employment Judge Wright on 19 May
2022 by CVP. The original claim was made against the Home Office and Mr Uddin, the
claimant’s line manager, but after the respondent accepted vicarious liability for Mr
Uddin, Employment Judge Wright dismissed the case against him.
Case Number: 2301170/2021
3
11. The Case Management Order did not record any adjustments that the claimant needed
for this hearing. At the outset of the hearing this was discussed and agreed with the
claimant. The claimant is a disabled person by reason of depression. To assist the
claimant in managing the impact of her disability at this hearing, it was agreed that she
may need to take regular breaks. It was agreed she would indicate when a break was
required if she felt unable to continue. Throughout the hearing the claimant was able to
take breaks as and when she needed. Mr Crawford confirmed that the respondent
witnesses did not require any reasonable adjustments.
12. The claimant also stated that she had difficulty processing information due to the
medication she was on and that she may need questions repeated or that there may be
a delay in answering. It was agreed with the respondent and the Tribunal that when
asking questions, they would ensure that questions were repeated if necessary and time
would be given for the claimant to respond. This was accommodated throughout the
hearing.
13. This claim was listed for a five-day in person final hearing to deal with liability and remedy.
Based on the discussions with the parties, the Tribunal informed the parties that it was
not possible to hear submissions on remedy within the time allotted to the Tribunal. It
was also clear that the Tribunal did not have sufficient time to deliberate and to deliver a
judgment. The Tribunal therefore informed the parties that they would reserve the
decision and the case may be part heard but that the Tribunal panel would arrange to
meet for deliberation as soon as they could. Further days in Chambers took place on 7
and 13 February 2023.
The complaints and the issues
14. The complaints and the issues as to liability have been agreed by the parties and
following a Case Management Hearing before Employment Judge Wright, a draft List of
Issues was provided to the Tribunal at pages 62 of the bundle, but the document was
headed draft List of Issues and contained track changed comments.
15. At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal clarified with the parties what further
amendments were required to the List of Issues at page 62 and requested a clean copy
to be provided to the Tribunal. The amendments included that the draft List of Issues
should be a stand-alone document that did not refer to other documents including the
Particulars of Claim and that this should provide specific dates that it is alleged that the
acts/ omissions occurred. The Tribunal confirmed that these were the only issues that
they would determine.
16. An amendment was made to the List of Issue by Ms Grace on the morning of day 4 as
she accepted that she omitted “C will contend that the formal absence management
warning appeal process, should have been completed by December 2020” from
paragraph 10(d). Mr Crawford accepted that this was an omission and not an additional
issue and the Tribunal allowed for the amendment to be made and Ms Grace provided a
final copy of the List of Issues to the Tribunal and respondent.
17. The Tribunal heard oral submissions from both Counsel. Both Counsel provided the
Tribunal with their final written submissions and the Tribunal were very grateful for the
assistance we received. We shall not set out the entirety of the parties’ submissions but
took them into account in reaching the decisions set out below. We have dealt with the
To continue reading
Request your trial