Cases6001844/2024

Claimant v The Caffeine Club Ltd

30 October 2025Before Employment Judge Mr P CadneyBristolin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£26,059

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found the respondent ceased providing shifts from 27 November 2023 and dismissed the claimant on 9 January 2024 because of her absence between 17-27 November 2023, which arose from her disability (mixed anxiety and depression). The burden of proof shifted to the respondent, who failed to provide any explanation or justification defence as they did not respond or attend the hearing.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

The claimant contended her dismissal could constitute direct disability discrimination, but the tribunal determined the case on the basis of discrimination arising from disability under s15 and did not make a separate finding on direct discrimination.

Facts

Ms Chadburn worked as a barista from September 2023. She had mixed anxiety and depression diagnosed on 11 September 2023 and had suffered from mental health issues since age 15. On 17 November 2023 she had a breakdown during her shift and took three weeks agreed absence. When she indicated readiness to return on 27 November 2023, the respondent never provided her with any further shifts. On 9 January 2024 she was dismissed by Freya Smye, told she was 'not the right fit for the company'. The respondent failed to submit a response or attend the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal found Ms Chadburn was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The respondent's failure to provide shifts from 27 November 2023 and subsequent dismissal constituted discrimination arising from disability under s.15, as these were unfavourable acts causally linked to her disability-related absence. The burden shifted to the respondent to justify its actions, which it failed to do. The tribunal awarded £26,059.05 including injury to feelings, lost wages, holiday pay and interest.

Practical note

Where a respondent fails to engage with tribunal proceedings, the burden of proof shifts to them under Igen v Wong, and their failure to provide any explanation for treatment connected to disability-related absence will result in a finding of discrimination arising from disability.

Award breakdown

Injury to feelings£15,000
Holiday pay£807
Arrears of pay£7,502
Interest£2,750

Vento band: middle

Legal authorities cited

Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd [2002] ICR 1498Aderimi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd UKEAT/0316/12, [2013] ICR 591Igweike v TSB Bank Plc [2020] IRLR 267Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302J v DLA Piper UK LLP 2010 ICR 1052College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs 2002 IRLR 185

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
6001844/2024
Decision date
30 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Barista
Service
4 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No