Cases→6002307/2023

Claimant v OVO Energy Ltd

6 March 2025Before Employment Judge D Gray-JonesSouthamptonhybrid

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£33,409

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed due to disability-related sickness absence. The dismissal was not a fair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and dismissed the claimant in circumstances where she should have been supported through a phased return to work.

Direct Discrimination(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The claimant was dismissed because of disability-related absence (Long Covid and Hyperthyroidism) and the dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010. The respondent should have implemented the phased return to work plan prepared by the claimant's Long Covid therapist, Michelle Lennox, and should have supported reduced hours working.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Senior Business Change Analyst for over 16 years. She was dismissed on 21 June 2023 due to disability-related sickness absence arising from Long Covid and Hyperthyroidism. A phased return to work plan had been prepared by her Long Covid therapist at Solent NHS Trust, but the respondent refused to implement it and dismissed her instead. She had not worked since dismissal and sought reinstatement or re-engagement.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination under section 15 EqA and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Re-engagement was not ordered as there was only a 50% chance the claimant could remain in employment. The tribunal awarded compensation of £33,409.01 comprising a basic award, injury to feelings award in the middle Vento band (£20,000), interest, and loss of statutory rights, but the compensatory award for financial loss was reduced to nil after mitigation.

Practical note

Employers must properly consider and implement recommended phased return to work plans for disabled employees; dismissing for disability-related absence without doing so will constitute both unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Award breakdown

Basic award£10,288
Injury to feelings£20,000
Loss of statutory rights£500
Interest£3,121

Vento band: middle

Award equivalent: 41.1 weeks' gross pay

Adjustments

Polkey reduction50%

50% chance that the claimant would not have remained in employment after the end of the phased return finishing at the end of September 2023

Legal authorities cited

Chagger v Abbey National Plc [2010] ICR 397Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] ICR 318Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd UKEAT/0206/15/BACooper Contracting Limited v Lindsey UKEAT/0184/15Wilding v British Telecommunications Plc [2002] ICR 1079Armitage, Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson [1997] IRLR 162D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [1997] IRLR 677Kelly v PGA European Tour [2021] ICR 1124Meridian Ltd v Gomersall & Others [1977] ICR 597

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.119-122ERA 1996 s.116ERA 1996 s.115ERA 1996 s.114ERA 1996 s.112-113Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996EqA 2010 s.119(4)EqA 2010 s.124EqA 2010 s.20-21EqA 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
6002307/2023
Decision date
6 March 2025
Hearing type
remedy
Hearing days
6
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
OVO Energy Ltd
Sector
energy
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Business Change Analyst
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000
Service
16 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →