Claimant v V & A Enterprises Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that no reasonable employer would have dismissed without first attempting mediation, a behaviour agreement, or issuing a final warning, given the claimant's depression, good work record, and the fact the conflict was limited to one ex-partner colleague. Dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of conduct arising from her disability (depression and autism spectrum disorder). The respondent knew or should have known about the disability and its impact. Dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting staff, as mediation or a final warning would have been more appropriate alternatives.
The tribunal concluded that while there was misconduct, it was not so serious as to constitute a fundamental breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. The claimant was entitled to notice of dismissal.
Facts
The claimant, a museum technician with depression and undiagnosed autism, was dismissed for gross misconduct after complaints from a former romantic partner (K) that she was being stalked and bullied. The conduct included excessive emails, visiting K's workspace, using corridors and toilets near K, and booking a specialist conference K would attend. The claimant had been instructed to limit contact but struggled to understand or implement the required boundaries. She was suspended in July 2022, investigated, and dismissed without notice in April 2023. The claimant had a good work record and colleagues noted she was literal-minded and struggled with social cues.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair, discriminatory under s.15 Equality Act 2010, and wrongful. The respondent knew or should have known the claimant's conduct arose from disability (depression and autism). No reasonable employer would have dismissed without attempting mediation, a behaviour agreement, or a final warning. The tribunal reduced awards by 25% (majority) reflecting the risk the claimant would have been dismissed anyway due to potential continued non-compliance.
Practical note
Employers must explore alternatives to dismissal (mediation, behaviour agreements, warnings) where conduct arises from disability, especially when the employee has a good work record and the conflict involves one colleague; dismissal without such steps will be unfair and discriminatory even where conduct is serious.
Adjustments
By majority (Employment Judge and Mr Godecharle), 25% reduction for risk claimant would have been dismissed anyway even with fair procedures due to potential continued disobedience. Ms Breslin assessed 20%.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2214947/2023
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Museum Technician
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister