Claimant v LRG Employees Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's behaviour (including aggression towards colleagues and physically preventing a subordinate from leaving a room) arose in consequence of her Bipolar II Disorder. However, the respondent's decision to dismiss was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of securing a safe, respectful working environment. The incident of gross misconduct on 28 June 2024, where the claimant prevented Ms Hurn from leaving a room, was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. The tribunal found the respondent acted proportionately and provided the s.15(1)(b) defence.
Facts
The claimant was employed as Head of Centre from September 2023 and dismissed for misconduct in July 2024 after nine months service. She had Bipolar II Disorder (diagnosed 2009, stable on medication). Between May-June 2024, several incidents occurred: unprofessional handling of a landlord call, telling a colleague to 'shut up' seven times in front of others, inappropriate emails, and critically, on 28 June 2024, physically preventing her subordinate Ms Hurn from leaving a meeting room, causing distress. The claimant disclosed her disability on 14 June 2024. Occupational Health recommended adjustments including more home working and stress risk assessment, which were being arranged when the final incident occurred.
Decision
The tribunal found the claim of discrimination arising from disability (s.15 Equality Act 2010) failed. While the claimant's conduct arose in consequence of her Bipolar II Disorder (stress triggering symptoms of irritability/aggression), the respondent successfully demonstrated dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of a safe, respectful workplace. The final incident of physically preventing a colleague from leaving a room constituted gross misconduct sufficient to warrant dismissal regardless of other incidents.
Practical note
Even where conduct arises from disability, dismissal can be justified under s.15(1)(b) where the conduct is sufficiently serious (here, physical intimidation/gross misconduct) and the employer has a legitimate aim of workplace safety, particularly where reasonable adjustments would not prevent recurrence of such serious behaviour.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010878/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Centre (Team Leader)
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No