Claimant v Manchester City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Section 15 claim regarding refusal to interview for Business Support Officer role at Etrop Court failed. Tribunal found the reason for refusal was the claimant's baseline did not provide sufficient evidence of skills required for the post, not her absences arising from disability. Ms Fallows did not know the claimant, was unaware she was disabled, and was unaware of her absence record.
Section 15 claim regarding dismissal failed. Tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something (unfitness for role) arising from disability, but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The respondent had a legitimate aim of managing agency cover costs and service continuity. Dismissal was appropriate and reasonably necessary after extended redeployment process, adjustments, and medical advice. No less discriminatory alternative was available, and the claimant did not wish to continue employment.
Section 13 claim regarding the dismissing officer Mr Considine sending a letter wrongly referring to the attendance management hearing as a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct failed. Tribunal found this was a basic error showing lack of care in drafting, not less favourable treatment because of disability. Mr Considine apologised for the mistake. The reason was carelessness, not the claimant's disability.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent from July 2012 as a Grade 4 Support Worker. From 2016 she was medically unfit for that role due to mental health difficulties and was moved to a temporary Resource Team Administrator role for about 5 years. She had significant absences totalling 416 days from January 2020 to dismissal. Following OH advice she could not continue in the Resource Team Administrator role, she was placed on the MPeople redeployment process for 26 weeks (extended from the usual 12 weeks). She was not selected for interview for a Business Support Officer role at Etrop Court and missed or declined several other interviews. She was dismissed on 18 July 2023 on grounds of medical capability after no suitable alternative role was found.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The refusal to interview for the Etrop Court role was because the claimant's baseline did not demonstrate the necessary skills, not because of her disability-related absences. The dismissal, though unfavourable treatment arising from disability, was justified as proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of managing agency cover costs and service continuity after extended attempts at redeployment and adjustments. The direct discrimination claim regarding a procedural error in a letter failed as it was carelessness, not disability-related.
Practical note
Even where dismissal is unfavourable treatment arising from disability, it can be objectively justified where the employer has made reasonable adjustments, extended a redeployment process significantly beyond normal timescales, and the employee is unfit for their substantive role with no prospect of return and no suitable alternative role available.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2413631/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Manchester City Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Support Worker
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep