Claimant v Dr Fernandes and Partners
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time as the effects of her RSI were not long-term (had not lasted 12 months and were not likely to). Even if wrong on disability, the tribunal concluded the respondent did consider and make reasonable adjustments where needed, and that most requested aids were provided or already available.
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. Even if wrong on disability, the tribunal concluded the claimant's dismissal was not because of her requests for workplace adjustments, which had been agreed at a meeting on 1 September 2022. Instead, the dismissal arose from a clash of personalities and the manner in which the claimant interacted with the partners.
The respondent conceded it had inadvertently failed to pay the claimant the correct basic salary. The tribunal found this was wages properly payable to the claimant. The claim succeeded in respect of arrears of pay (£815.01) but not in respect of holiday pay or pension contributions (the latter not falling within the definition of wages per Somerset County Council v Chambers).
Facts
Dr Chowdhury was employed as a salaried GP by a GP partnership from August to September 2022. She reported symptoms of repetitive strain injury (RSI) shortly after starting and requested various workplace adjustments including ergonomic equipment, rest breaks, and a headset. A meeting on 1 September 2022 agreed to all her requested adjustments. However, on 20 September 2022 she was dismissed during a Teams meeting. The GP practice was under CQC special measures at the time due to lapses following the sudden departure of the practice manager.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time as her RSI symptoms were not long-term. The discrimination claims therefore failed. The respondent had also taken reasonable steps to accommodate her requests. However, the tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of £815.01 from the claimant's wages, representing underpayment of her basic salary, and ordered this to be repaid. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was due to a clash of personalities and working styles, not disability-related issues.
Practical note
A tribunal will rigorously scrutinise whether an impairment's effects are 'long-term' under the Equality Act 2010, requiring clear evidence that effects lasted or were likely to last at least 12 months at the relevant time, not just that they later developed into a long-term condition.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2300942/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Salaried GP
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister