Ms L Hall v Astrazeneca UK Ltd: 2404157/2017
| Judgment Date | 09 August 2019 |
| Citation | 2404157/2017 |
| Published date | 28 August 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2404157/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Ms L Hall
Respondent:
Astrazeneca UK Limited
Heard at:
Manchester
On:
12-15 March 2019
8 April 2019
(in Chambers)
Before:
Employment Judge Langridge
Ms C S Jammeh
Mr C S Williams
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant:
Respondent:
Mr D Bunting, Counsel
Mrs S Skeaping, Solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The respondent did not breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments and
the claims under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 therefore fail.
2. The claimant's dismissal was not discriminatory under section 15 Equality Act
2010.
3. The claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent and her claim under the
Employment Rights Act 1996 fails.
4. All claims are dismissed.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2404157/2017
2
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant’s claims arose from her dismissal on the grounds of capability
following a series of sickness absence reviews. She claimed that the respondent’s
decision to dismiss was unfair in that it did not carry out a fair procedure and failed to
consider alternatives to dismissal. The claimant also alleged that her dismissal was
discriminatory in that the reasons arose from her disability, chronic anxiety and
depression. She further alleged that the respondent failed in its duty to make
reasonable adjustments both to the way it recorded sickness absences and to the
dismissal procedure itself, in order to accommodate her disability. A claim of indirect
discrimination based on the respondent’s Attendance Management Policy was not
pursued.
2. In defending the claims the respondent acknowledged the claimant’s
disability, about which it had knowledge at the time, but said the dismissal was fair
as it followed repeated periods of sickness absence. The respondent said it had
made reasonable adjustments which allowed for the claimant’s disability, and
asserted that even after making adjustments, her attendance record was significantly
higher than other employees’. It denied that the dismissal arose from the disability
and said that alternatively, dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving its
legitimate aim of improving attendance.
3. The hearing took place over four days when evidence was heard from the
claimant and her union representative, Ian Brocklehurst. The witnesses who gave
evidence on behalf of the respondent were Steve Richmond, the dismissing
manager, Andy Evans, the appeal manager, and Julie Jones, HR adviser. The
parties produced a comprehensive agreed bundle for the Tribunal and written
submissions. They also provided, at the Tribunal’s request, their respective analyses
of the effect that the requested reasonable adjustments would have had, if the
claimant’s arguments were accepted.
Issues and relevant law
4. The main claims were brought under the Equality Act 2010 (‘Equality Act’).
The claimant alleged that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments
under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act. The relevant parts of section 20 state:
(1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person,
this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for
those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.
(2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.
(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of
A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant
matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as
it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
To continue reading
Request your trial