Mrs R Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ms K Dero: 2206237/2018
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2021 |
| Citation | 2206237/2018 |
| Date | 05 November 2021 |
| Published date | 29 November 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2206237/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs R Wright-Turner
Respondents: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (1)
Ms K Dero (2)
Heard at: London Central (by video using Cloud Video Platform)
On: 13-16, 19, 21-23, 26-29 April 2021
In chambers: 30 April, 5 May, 1, 3 & 9 June 2021
Before: Employment Judge Khan
Ms S Plummer
Mr D Kendall
Representation
Claimant: Mr B Collins QC, Counsel
Respondent: Mr D Basu QC, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
(1) At all relevant times, the claimant was disabled by reference to ADHD
and PSTD / other psychological symptoms and the respondents had
knowledge of the same.
(2) The harassment complaint succeeds in part (paras 37(1)(a), (c) & (d)
POC)
(3) The direct discrimination complaint succeeds in part (paras 37(2) & (5)
POC)
(4) The discrimination arising from disability complaint succeeds in part
(paras 39(1) & (4) POC).
(5) The first respondent failed unreasonably to comply with the ACAS Code
of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
(6) All the other complaints fail and are dismissed.
Case No: 2206237/2018
2
REASONS
1. By a claim presented on 28 September 2018 the claimant brought
complaints of disability discrimination, detriment and automatic unfair
dismissal (protected disclosures) and unauthorised deductions / breach of
contract. The respondents resisted these complaints.
2. The description of disability which the claimant relied on was amended by
agreement on day one of the hearing as set out below.
The issues
3. We were required to determine the issues listed below which were agreed
by the parties in advance and refined following discussion with them during
the final hearing.
A. Disability (section 6 & Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”))
1. Did the claimant suffer from a mental impairment at the relevant
times by reason of (i) ADHD and/or (ii) PTSD / other psychological
symptoms identified in the Joint Statement of the expert
psychiatrists?
2. Did the impairment/s have a substantial and long-term adverse effect
on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities? In
particular:
(1) was the effect of the impairment/s (taken in the absence of
treatment or other measures) more than trivial?
(2) did the impairment/s last, or were they likely to last, at least 12
months?
3. Did the first and/or the second respondent know, or could they
reasonably be expected to have known, that the claimant was
disabled?
B. Direct discrimination (section 13 EQA)
4. Did the treatment alleged by the claimant at paras 37(1) – (6) of the
particulars of claim (“POC”) occur? The alleged treatment is alleged
to have been carried out by both respondents.
Paras 37(1) – (6) POC
(1) In the course of the meeting on 2 May 2018:
a. Repeating to the claimant the suggestion that her brain
“doesn’t work like other people’s”.
b. Suggesting that the claimant’s actions in sending the
email in question were inappropriate or irrational, and
Case No: 2206237/2018
3
that someone who did not have ADHD would not have
sent the email.
c. Telling the claimant that she did not realise she was
being serious when discussing ADHD.
d. Accusing the claimant of failing to declare her disabilities
to the first respondent during the recruitment process.
e. When the claimant attempted to explain her conditions,
taking no interest in learning about them.
f. Asking about reasonable adjustments when the
circumstances did not disclose a need for that enquiry.
g. Suggesting that the claimant was incapable of
performing her role.
h. Conveying to the claimant that, in light of her disabilities,
she regretted her appointment.
i. Informing the claimant (without prior discussion) that the
HR Director would be appointed a “buddy” to support the
claimant, when no such buddy was required.
(2) Informing the claimant that her probation period had been
extended by three months (by letter dated 10 May, postmarked
17 May and received by the claimant on 19 May 2018).
Furthermore, doing so:
a. without giving her the opportunity to discuss or comment
on the decision before it was taken;
b. without having provided feedback on her performance in
accordance with the first respondent’s policy or at all;
c. after (by both the second respondent and Mr Grimley)
having described the claimant’s in positive terms;
d. without explaining which areas of performance required
improvement; and
e. when she was on sick leave.
The respondents accept (a) & (e) and deny (b) – (d).
(3) Making repeated attempts to meet with the claimant while she
was on disability-related sick leave i.e. on 24 May and 24 July
2018.
(4) Refusing to deal with the claimant’s grievance as sent by her
solicitors on 1 August 2018.
(5) Dismissing the claimant with effect on 9 August 2018. The
claimant says this decision was taken on 2 August. The
respondents say this decision was taken around 23 July with a
final discussion between the second respondent and Mark
Grimley on 30 July 2018. Furthermore, doing so without giving
her:
a. the opportunity to be heard before the decision to
dismiss was taken;
b. any warning that she was at risk of dismissal; or
c. any opportunity to appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial