Ms K Skeavington v The Senad Group Ltd: 2604240/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2022 |
| Date | 14 July 2022 |
| Published date | 03 August 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2604240/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No: 2604240/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms K Skeavington
Respondent: The Senad Group Limited
Heard: Via Cloud Video Platform in the Midlands (East) Region
On: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 May and, in chambers, on 31 May 2022 and 17
June 2022
Before: Employment Judge Ayre, sitting with members
Ms J Hallam
Mr A Greenland
Representatives:
Claimant: Mr R O’Dair, counsel
Respondent: Ms T Hand, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:
1. The respondent discriminated against the claimant contrary to section
15 of the Equality Act 2010 by:
a. Inviting her to a probationary review meeting; and
b. Dismissing her.
2. The claim for disability related harassment fails and is dismissed.
3. The claim for automatic unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
4. The claim for detriment contrary to section 44 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.
5. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeds.
By a majority, the Tribunal finds that:
Case No: 2604240/2020
6. The respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment for the
claimant by not allowing her to work from home during her notice
period.
REASONS
Background
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a teacher from 20
April 2020 to 26 July 2020.
2. The claimant has two long term medical conditions: Behçet's disease,
also known as Behçet's syndrome, and bi-polar disorder.
3. In a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 25 November 2020
following a period of Early Conciliation that started on 12 September
2020 and ended on 26 October 2020, the claimant brought complaints
of disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal under section
100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the ERA”), detriment
contrary to section 44 of the ERA and for unlawful deduction from
wages. The respondent defends the claim.
4. There have been three Preliminary Hearings for case management
purposes in this claim. The first took place before Employment Judge
Britton on 22 February 2021. At that hearing the claims were identified
as being the following
a. Automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 (d) of the ERA;
b. Detriment contrary to section 44(d) of the ERA;
c. Failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20-
22 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EQA”);
d. Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the
EQA; and
e. Harassment contrary to section 26 of the EQA.
5. Case Management Orders were made for the provision of a disability
impact statement and disclosure of medical evidence as the
respondent had not, at that stage, conceded that the claimant was
disabled.
6. The second Preliminary Hearing took place on 21 May 2021, also
before Employment Judge Britton. Prior to that hearing the respondent
admitted that the claimant was disabled by reason of Behçet's disease
but not in relation to bi-polar disorder. The claimant was ordered to
provide a second disability impact statement setting out the impact of
the bi-polar disorder on her. The notes of that Preliminary Hearing
record that the issues were agreed to be those summarised at the
previous hearing.
7. The respondent subsequently admitted that the claimant was also
disabled by reason of bi-polar disorder.
Case No: 2604240/2020
8. The third Preliminary Hearing took place on 31 January 2022 before
Employment Judge V Butler. A list of issues, agreed by the parties,
was appended to the note of that Preliminary Hearing. It is that list of
issues which was before the Tribunal at the start of the Final Hearing of
the claim on 23 May 2022.
9. Mr O’Dair represented the claimant at all of the Preliminary Hearings.
The respondent was represented at all of the Preliminary Hearings by
Ms B McDermott, solicitor, who instructed Ms Hand to represent the
respondent at the Final Hearing.
The Proceedings
10. The hearing took place via Cloud Video Platform at the request of the
claimant due to her health conditions. We heard evidence from the
claimant and, on behalf of the respondent, from Amanda Grant, the
Head Teacher of Maple View School, and Victoria Finn, the
respondent’s Human Resources Director.
11. At the start of the hearing the claimant’s representative indicated that
the claimant had also served a second witness statement dealing with
the question of remedy. Ms Hand indicated that the respondent did
not, in principle, object to the introduction of the statement, but she
suggested that a split remedy and liability hearing would be preferable.
In the event it was not possible for us to deal with remedy during the
course of this hearing.
12. There was an agreed bundle of documents which ran originally to 481
pages. At the start of the hearing the parties applied to add an
additional document to the bundle, namely the reference provided to
the respondent by the claimant’s former employer. This document was
added by agreement to the end of the bundle.
13. The respondent also applied to introduce an email chain between the
claimant’s trade union representative and Ms Finn between 30 June
and 3 July 2020. Mr O’Dair told the Tribunal that he had not seen the
email exchange. He was therefore given time to consider it and to
make representations as to whether he objected to it being introduced
into evidence. Having considered it he told the Tribunal that he had no
objection to it being introduced and it was therefore added to the
bundle at the start of the second day of the proceedings.
Reasonable adjustments
14. At the beginning of the hearing we discussed what adjustments
needed to be made to accommodate the claimant’s health conditions.
Mr O’Dair told the Tribunal that one of the impacts of the claimant’s
disabilities was that the claimant became fatigued, particularly in the
afternoon. He asked that she be allowed to give her evidence in the
mornings only, and the respondent did not object to this.
15. It was therefore agreed that the claimant would give her witness
evidence in the morning only and that we would take regular breaks.
To continue reading
Request your trial