Ms E Onigbanjo v London Borough of Croydon: 2301468/2016
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2017 |
| Citation | 2301468/2016 |
| Published date | 16 August 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms E Onigbanjo
Respondent: London Borough of Croydon
Heard at: Croydon On: 19 to 21 July 2017
Before: Employment Judge K Bryant
Ms B C Leverton
Ms T Williams
Representation:
Claimant: In Person
Respondent: Mr S Crawford (of Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
ON LIABILITY
1. The Claimant’s claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments under
sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 succeed in part, namely her
claim concerning a failure to implement Access to Work
recommendations.
2. The Claimant’s claims of pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the
Equality Act 2010 also succeed in part, namely her claims concerning a
failure to carry out a pregnancy-specific risk assessment as required by
regulation 16 the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
1999 and a failure to reallocate a case as agreed at a meeting on 11 April
2016.
3. Other aspects of the Claimant’s claims fail and are dismissed.
4. The tribunal will consider remedy at a hearing already listed for 8
September 2017 which is the subject of directions which will be issued
separately.
Case No: 2301468/2016
2
REASONS
Claims and issues
1. The claims and issues arising in this case were discussed and agreed by
the parties at the start of the hearing, and were again confirmed with the
Claimant at the conclusion of her evidence.
2. The Claimant brings two types of claim, the first for alleged failures to
make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010
(‘EqA’) and the second for pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of
the EqA (with an alternative direct sex discrimination claim but only in the
event that the claim under section 18 fails).
3. The parties had prepared what amounted to an agreed list of issues; there
were two versions in the bundle, one from the Claimant and one from the
Respondent, but as far as the tribunal could tell the substantive contents
were identical. Further clarification as to the detail of her allegations was
given by the Claimant at the hearing.
4. With regard to her reasonable adjustments claim, the Claimant relies on
fibromyalgia as giving rise to a disability within the meaning of the EqA.
The Respondent accepts that the Claimant was disabled as a result of
fibromyalgia from February 2016 onwards but does not expressly admit
disability at any earlier time. The Respondent does not seek to rely on
any lack of knowledge of the Claimant’s disability, ie no defence under
paragraph 20 of Schedule 8 to the EqA is raised.
5. The Claimant’s allegations fall within section 20(3) and/or 20(5) of the
EqA. For the purposes of section 20(3) the provisions, criteria or practices
(‘PCPs’) relied on concern her working pattern and/or working practices.
6. The Claimant made six allegations of failure to make reasonable
adjustments in the agreed list of issues which, as clarified during the
hearing, are as follows:
6.1 Recommendations made in an Access to Work report dated 14
January 2016 should have been implemented by the beginning of
March 2016; she says that nothing was implemented for about 5
months and key elements were not in place even when she started
annual and then maternity leave in July 2016;
6.2 An appropriate referral to Occupational Health (‘OH’) should have
been made; specifically C says (a) that there should not have been
a delay between the completion of a referral form on 13 January
2016 and an OH appointment on 29 March 2016 and (b) that she
should have been seen by a doctor not a nurse;
To continue reading
Request your trial