Claimant v Slough Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that dismissal for the claimant's sustained deception (falsely claiming her daughter was seriously ill to explain absences from autumn 2018 to April 2020) fell within the reasonable range of responses open to a reasonable employer. The sanction of dismissal was not too harsh, and the procedural fairness arguments advanced at the final hearing were also rejected.
The claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) failed because the claimant was not disabled at the time the deception occurred (autumn 2018 to April 2020). She was only found to be disabled from 25 June 2020 onwards. The dismissal and disciplinary action arose from the deception, which could not have arisen in consequence of her disability as she was not disabled at the relevant time.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed for sustained deception from autumn 2018 to April 2020, during which she falsely told her employer that her young daughter was seriously ill and in hospital, using this as a reason for absences. She admitted the deception on 27 April 2020. She was found to be disabled by anxiety, depression and PTSD from 25 June 2020 onwards, after the deception occurred. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. At a preliminary hearing in February 2023, EJ Shastri-Hurst made deposit orders of £15 for each claim, finding little reasonable prospect of success and clearly warning the claimant of the cost consequences.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims for substantially the same reasons given by EJ Shastri-Hurst in the deposit order. The disability discrimination claim failed because the claimant was not disabled at the time of the deception which led to her dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim failed because dismissal for serious and sustained deception fell within the reasonable range of responses. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs of £3,000 plus the £30 deposit to the respondent, finding she had acted unreasonably in continuing to pursue the claims after April 2023 despite clear judicial warnings.
Practical note
Claimants who continue to pursue claims after a deposit order with clear reasoning face significant costs risk if the claim is dismissed for substantially the same reasons given in the deposit order, even if unrepresented and disabled.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3320578/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No