W v Leicester City Council: 2602275/2019
| Judgment Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
| Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Citation | 2602275/2019 |
| Published date | 27 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case No: 2602275/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
W
Respondent:
Leicester City Council
Heard at: Leicester via Cloud Video Platform (CVP)
On: 28 - 30 April 2021,
4 - 7 May
10 - 11 May 2021
Before: Employment Judge Ahmed
Members: Mrs F Betts
Mr K Rose
Representation
Claimant: Mr Raoul Downey of Counsel (instructed under the Direct
Access Scheme)
Respondent: Mr Paul Livingston of Counsel (instructed by Leicester
City Council)
Corrected JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination are dismissed;
2. The complaint of wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) is dismissed.
3. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed but contributed to his dismissal. It is just and
equitable to reduce his basic award by 75%.
4. Having regard to the decision in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] IRLR
50, there is no compensatory award.
5. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant compensation for unfair
dismissal of £3,478.12 (net) in respect of the basic award.
6. The Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
Case No: 2602275/2019
2
REASONS
1. In these proceedings the Claimant brings complaints of unfair dismissal, sex and
disability discrimination and wrongful dismissal (breach of contract). The complaints
of disability discrimination that remain are of discrimination arising from disability and
a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The complaints of direct and indirect
disability discrimination and indirect sex discrimination have either been withdrawn or
struck out at an earlier stage.
2. Orders for anonymisation of the Claimant and the relevant complainant
(identified in these proceedings as ‘S’) were made at an earlier preliminary hearing.
Those orders continue. There is no application to anonymise the name of the
Respondent or any other individual.
3. In relation to the complaints of disability discrimination, the disability relied upon
is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) which is conceded as a relevant
disability. Knowledge of the disability is not conceded.
4. This hearing was partly conducted by video via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP)
and partly in person. In coming to our decision we have taken into consideration the
oral evidence of the Claimant who gave evidence on his own behalf. No other
witnesses were called on his behalf. The Respondents gave evidence through Miss
Marie Murray (the investigating officer), Mr Ian Craig (the dismissing officer), Ms
Nicola Graham (an HR Officer) and Councillor Diane Cank (Chair of the Appeal
Committee panel). The decision and reasons represent the views of all three
members of the Tribunal.
5. At the commencement of the hearing and at various intervals throughout the
parties were informed that whilst any witnesses were still giving evidence they must
not discuss the case with anyone else during any break or until their evidence was
completed. In contravention of that instruction the Claimant (who joined the hearing
remotely by video) was overhead at the commencement of one screen break to
speak briefly and to make a comment to someone else about the case. It was not so
much a discussion but a comment about his cross-examination. The Respondent
made an application for the claim to be struck out. The Tribunal considered the
matter but gave a provisional view that a fair hearing was still possible and the
application was not pursued further.
THE FACTS
6. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Neighbourhood Housing
Officer (NHO) from 1 February 1994. At the time of the relevant events his Team
Leader and line manager was a female officer, S. The Claimant’s role involved
providing tenancy and estate management services to residents of local authority
homes. It frequently involved dealing with vulnerable tenants. Some of the cases he
dealt with involved harassment, anti-social behaviour and domestic violence.
7. On 26 November 2018, whilst S was completing the Claimant’s performance
and development review the Claimant kissed the fingers of his hand then placed it on
S’s hand saying: “I know this is unprofessional”. He is also alleged to have said that
he knew it was ‘inappropriate’ to do this. We found on the facts that he did not make
To continue reading
Request your trial