Claimant v Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Great Britain Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the direct disability discrimination complaint. The judge found there were better than no reasonable prospects of success because there are contested facts about the disciplinary process, particularly regarding a meeting on 28 July 2022 where the claimant alleges she was obviously unfit to continue but the investigator proceeded. The claimant alleges PTSD affecting her cognition and that the respondent deliberately avoided obtaining medical evidence. The judge concluded these factual disputes must be determined at a full hearing.
The unfair dismissal complaint was mentioned as part of the overall case management but the judgment focused on the strike-out application for direct disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal complaint remains live and will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed in August 2022 for dishonesty after the respondent concluded she had falsely claimed her estranged husband had died in February 2021 and continued to lie about this until March 2021 and afterwards. The claimant asserts she suffered from PTSD which affected her cognition and decision-making, and that the respondent conducted the investigation and disciplinary process unreasonably, including requiring her to attend meetings when unfit, failing to keep accurate minutes, and failing to obtain medical or occupational health advice. She alleges the respondent deliberately avoided medical evidence to facilitate her dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the direct disability discrimination complaint. Employment Judge George held that there were better than no reasonable prospects of success because there are significant disputed facts about the disciplinary process, particularly concerning a meeting on 28 July 2022 where the claimant alleges CCTV footage will show she was obviously unfit to continue. The judge found that if the claimant's allegations are proven, they would call for explanation from the respondent and could lead to the burden of proof shifting under s.136 Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
Strike out applications in disability discrimination cases will fail where there are significant factual disputes about the employer's conduct during the disciplinary process and the claimant's case, taken at its highest, could potentially shift the burden of proof to the employer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315443/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister