Ms L Meachin v Henley-on-Thames Town Council: 3322384/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Citation | 3322384/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 16 January 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case Number: 3322384/2021
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms. Laila Meachin
Respondent: Henley-on-Thames Town Council
Heard at: Reading by CVP On: 20,21,22 and 23 November 2023
Before: Judge S. Matthews
Mr. A. Chinn-Shaw
Mr. G. Page
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Miss A. Stroud (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:
The claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from
disability, indirect disability discrimination, associative indirect disability discrimination,
indirect age discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, harassment related to disability
and/or sex and/or age and failure to make reasonable adjustments are each dismissed.
The complaints are not well founded.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent, a Town Council, as a Cemetery
Warden from 26 July 2021 to 8 October 2021. Her employment was terminated
by the respondent.
2. She has brought claims for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising
from disability, indirect disability discrimination, associative indirect disability
discrimination, indirect age discrimination, indirect sex discrimination,
Case Number: 3322384/2021
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
harassment related to disability and/or sex and/or age and failure to make
reasonable adjustments.
3. She also brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds of marriage. This
was dismissed on 3 October 2022 on withdrawal by the claimant. Early
conciliation started on 1 October 2021 and ended on 19 October 2021. The
claim form was presented on 20 October 2021.
4. The respondent denies liability for each of the claims. The respondent’s defence
is that the claimant was dismissed during her contractual probationary period as
she was not suitable for the role. The respondent denies discrimination and failure
to make reasonable adjustments.
5. The hearing was listed for four days. It was agreed that the Tribunal would hear
evidence on liability first and then if the claimant was successful on liability a
further hearing would be listed to decide remedy.
6. A Restricted Reporting Order was put in place to the date of Judgment in order
to protect the privacy of the person the claimant relies on for her associative
indirect disability discrimination claim. There has subsequently been an
application for an Order for anonymity (Rule 50). The application has not been
granted as it is possible to maintain the privacy of the person by not naming the
person or including any identifying information. The Judgment will instead refer
to the claimant’s ‘caring responsibilities’.
Issues
7. The issues the Tribunal will decide were discussed at a case management hearing
on 5 October 2022 (68-81).
8. At the outset of the final hearing the claimant submitted that the List of Issues did
not reflect her case. She said that she was not complaining that the respondent
required her to work 6 hours in a day. She accepted that the respondent had not
required that. Her case was that she was unable to work more than 3 hours in a
day. She said she had agreed that she would work 3 hours a day over 5 days but
the respondent required her to work more than 3 hours in a day. She wished to
change the reference in the List of Issues from 6 hours to 3 hours.
9. Counsel for the respondent objected to the amendment being made to the List of
Issues. She argued that the claimant had previously confirmed she agreed the List
of Issues and the respondent would be prejudiced by the change. Evidence had
been prepared on the basis that the allegation was that the respondent required
the claimant to work 6 hours in a day.
10. The Tribunal decided to allow the change to the List of Issues. The Tribunal’s core
duty is to hear the case in accordance with the law and evidence and departure
from an agreed List of Issues is sometimes necessary to enable the Tribunal to
comply with that duty. The respondent was not prejudiced as the witnesses who
could give evidence on the issue were at the Tribunal. This could be dealt with by
a short adjournment and by amendment to the respondent’s witness statements
or by the respondent being given leave to give evidence in chief on the factual
allegations. The claimant could be cross examined on the allegations.
To continue reading
Request your trial