Claimant v Milton Keynes College
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent did offer the claimant work on four occasions after 29 April 2022. The claimant did not provide evidence that she was not offered work; rather, she stated she did not want to work for the respondent. There was no less favourable treatment and no facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Even if work had not been offered, it was due to a reorganisation of the English and Maths department that affected all occasional workers, not because of the claimant's disability.
The tribunal found that Ms Wilson did not say 'it would not be viable for the business if the claimant was to have radiotherapy and chemotherapy to work at the college anymore'. The claimant's versions of what was said were inconsistent, and Ms Wilson had continued to offer work even after knowing of the chemotherapy plan in February 2022. There was therefore no less favourable treatment and no direct discrimination.
The tribunal found that the claimant was provided with hours of work after 29 April 2022. As there was no unfavourable treatment, there could be no discrimination arising from disability. The claim failed at the threshold stage.
The tribunal found that Ms Wilson did not say the alleged words 'it would not be viable for the business if the claimant was to have radiotherapy and chemotherapy to work at the college anymore'. The claimant's evidence was inconsistent on what was said. Ms Wilson had been historically supportive and had offered work after knowing of the chemotherapy plan. There was no unwanted conduct and therefore no harassment related to disability.
Facts
The claimant was a flexible lecturer on a zero-hours contract with the respondent college. She had brain tumours causing epilepsy, memory loss, tremor and hearing loss, and underwent a biopsy in March 2022 followed by chemotherapy. After a telephone call with her line manager Ms Wilson on 3 May 2022, the claimant believed she was told it would not be viable for the business for her to work while receiving chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The claimant alleged she was not offered further work after 29 April 2022. The respondent contended it offered work on four occasions after that date, and that Ms Wilson did not say the alleged words. The respondent was reorganising its English and Maths departments, which meant no occasional workers continued after May-July 2022.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent did offer the claimant work after 29 April 2022 on four occasions, which the claimant declined. The tribunal did not accept that Ms Wilson said the alleged discriminatory words on 3 May 2022, finding the claimant's versions inconsistent and Ms Wilson's evidence credible. There was no less favourable treatment, no unfavourable treatment, and no unwanted conduct. All claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment related to disability failed.
Practical note
Zero-hours workers bringing discrimination claims face significant evidential challenges when alleging refusal of work, particularly where the employer can show offers were made and declined, and where the claimant's account of key conversations is materially inconsistent across contemporaneous emails, claim forms and witness statements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310202/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Flexible Lecturer in the English Department
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No