Claimant v Simply Care UK Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. Although the respondent had genuine belief and reasonable grounds for believing the claimant was on unauthorised absence and failed to communicate, the respondent failed to follow the ACAS code by not inviting the claimant to an investigatory or disciplinary meeting before dismissal, and did not provide an effective right of appeal. The grievance process did not cure these defects as it was conducted by the same person who made the dismissal decision.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer that age was a reason for dismissal. The reason for dismissal was unauthorised absence and failure to communicate, which had no connection to the claimant's age. A hypothetical comparator of any age in the same circumstances would have been treated the same way.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer that race was a reason for dismissal. The reason for dismissal was the claimant's unauthorised absence and failure to communicate, not her Black Caribbean ethnicity. A hypothetical white comparator in the same circumstances would have been treated identically.

The tribunal accepted the claimant had type 2 diabetes which amounted to a disability and that the respondent knew this. However, there were no facts from which the tribunal could infer that disability was a reason for dismissal. A hypothetical comparator without diabetes who was on unauthorised absence and failed to communicate would also have been dismissed.

The tribunal found that being replaced with a younger member of staff after dismissal was not due to the claimant's age. The reason for recruitment was to ensure continuity of care and maintain the rota. A hypothetical comparator of any age in the same circumstances would also have been replaced.

There was no evidence to suggest that the decision to hire a younger replacement was related to the claimant's race. A hypothetical white comparator who was dismissed would also have been replaced with a younger member of staff.

The tribunal saw no evidence to support that the claimant's disability had anything to do with the choice of who replaced her. The allegation was not supported and dismissed.