Ms M Miller v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust: 2601317/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 03 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
RESERVED CASE NO: 2601317/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Mandie Miller
Respondent: United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
Heard at: Nottingham
On: 18 – 22 July 2022
Deliberations via CVP on 27 July 2022
Before: Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Members: Ms L Lowe
Mr A Blomefield
Representation
Claimant: Ms J Harrison, Solicitor
Respondent: Mr C Bourne, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is:-
1. The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds.
2. The Claimant’s claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments is
well-founded in part and, therefore, succeeds in part.
3. The Claimant’s claim of discrimination arising from disability is well-founded in part and,
therefore, succeeds in part.
4. The Claimant’s claim of harassment is not well-founded and fails.
5. The Claimant’s claim of discrimination by association is not well-founded and fails.
6. The Claimant’s claim of breach of contract is not well-founded and fails
7. The Claimant’s claim that the Respondent breached the ACAS Code of Practice is not
well-founded and fails.
RESERVED CASE NO: 2601317/2020
2
REASONS
Background
1. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 8 April 2009 until her dismissal
with effect from 27 July 2020. She claims:
• Unfair dismissal - Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”):
• Discrimination arising from disability - Section 15 Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”):
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments - Section 20 & 21 EQA:
• Harassment – Section 26 EQA:
• Direct discrimination by association – s.13 EQA:
• Breach of contract; and
• An unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice
2. The Claimant commenced a period of early conciliation on 26 February 2020 which
concluded on 26 March 2020. She submitted her claim to the Tribunal on 26 April
2020 alleging disability discrimination. The Respondent submitted its Response on 27
May 2020. At this stage the Claimant was still employed and unrepresented.
3. The Claimant subsequently secured representation and submitted her amended claim
(undated). The Respondent opposed the amendments, and an open preliminary
hearing took place on 23 June 2021. During the course of the hearing, the parties
agreed the amendments and case management orders were issued. The Respondent
was given leave to amend its Response which it submitted on 4 August 2021.
4. The final hearing was listed between 10 – 14 January 2022 but was unable to
proceed. The Respondent had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders, and, in
addition, the Respondent’s Counsel was suffering from upsetting personal
circumstances and felt unable to proceed. However, the Tribunal heard the Claimant’s
application for costs and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant’s costs in the
amount of £1,750 + VAT on account of its unreasonable behaviour in failure to comply
with the Tribunal’s orders.
The issues
5. The issues that we were required to determine were agreed as follows:
1 Unfair dismissal
1.1 Was the Claimant dismissed for a fair reason pursuant to s.98(2) or
s98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act (“the ERA”)?
RESERVED CASE NO: 2601317/2020
3
The Respondent contends that the Claimant was dismissed for a fair reason
pursuant to s.98(2)(a) of the ERA, namely for capability relating to the
Claimant’s health.
1.2 If so, was the decision to dismiss the Claimant reasonable in all the
circumstances of the case?
1.3 In determining the above, the Tribunal must consider the following:
1.3.1 Whether the Respondent acted reasonably in treating the
reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal taking into account the size
and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking; and
1.3.2 Equity and the substantial merits of the case including should
the Claimant have been offered the role of Ward Clerk.
2. Disability
2.1 The Claimant alleges that she was disabled by virtue of both a physical
impairment and a mental impairment. The Claimant contends that her
physical impairment is the long-term pain in her left (non-dominant)
forearm and wrist, combined with weakness and stiffness. The
Claimant contends that her mental impairment is depression and
anxiety as a result of the aforementioned physical impairment.
2.2 The Respondent admits that the Claimant was at the relevant time, from
3 July 2019 onwards, disabled by reason of both her physical and
mental impairment.
3. Discrimination arising from disability
3.1 The Claimant claims the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably
with regards to two specific acts:
3.1.1 The Respondent’s dismissal of the Claimant, including the
Respondent’s upholding its decision to dismiss at appeal; and
3.1.2 The Respondent’s failure to award the Claimant the role of Ward
Clerk.
Dismissal
3.2 The Respondent admits that it dismissed the Claimant.
3.3 Did the Claimant’s dismissal amount to unfavourable treatment
because of something arising in consequence of her disability?
The Claimant contends that the “something arising in consequence of
her disability” was her inability to perform her contracted role.
To continue reading
Request your trial