Cases1601355/2024

Claimant v Adra (Tai) Cyfyngedig

18 July 2025Before Employment Judge J. BromigeWales (Caernarfon)hybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal heard evidence over three days with submissions on the fourth and deliberated on the fifth day. After considering all evidence and submissions, the tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer.

Detrimentfailed

The claimant alleged she was subjected to detriment on the grounds of being a part-time worker. The tribunal considered the evidence and found no unlawful detriment had occurred. The respondent's treatment of the claimant was not because she was a part-time worker.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The claimant brought a claim of associative direct disability discrimination, alleging she was treated less favourably because of her association with a disabled person. The tribunal found no evidence of direct discrimination and that the respondent's actions were not because of the disability association.

Facts

Ms Chamberlain, a part-time worker for Adra (Tai) Cyfyngedig (a housing association), was dismissed from her employment. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, part-time worker detriment, and associative direct disability discrimination. The case was heard over three days in person and two days remotely, with the claimant represented by her sister as a lay representative and the respondent represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all three claims after a full merits hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair, that the claimant had not been subjected to detriment because she was a part-time worker, and that there was no associative disability discrimination.

Practical note

A claim of associative disability discrimination requires evidence that the treatment was because of the association with a disabled person, not merely coincidental to it; employers can successfully defend unfair dismissal claims where their actions fall within the range of reasonable responses.

Case details

Case number
1601355/2024
Decision date
18 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
real estate
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep