Cases3200153/2024

Claimant v HealthRota Ltd

3 February 2025Before Employment Judge IllingLondon Eastremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Indirect Discrimination(disability)struck out

The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal exercised its discretion and found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, resulting in dismissal of this claim.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the complaint was not well-founded. The respondent either made reasonable adjustments or was not required to make the adjustments claimed by the claimant.

Direct Discrimination(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability. This constitutes discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and the claim succeeded.

Facts

Miss D Smith brought disability discrimination claims against her former employer HealthRota Ltd, a healthcare company. She alleged indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfavourable treatment arising from her disability. The case was heard over four days by video in January 2025.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the indirect discrimination claim as out of time and declined to extend the time limit. The reasonable adjustments claim failed on its merits. However, the section 15 claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability succeeded. This appears to be a liability judgment with remedy to follow.

Practical note

A claimant can succeed on section 15 discrimination arising from disability even where indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustment claims fail, highlighting the distinct nature of each disability discrimination claim type.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.19

Case details

Case number
3200153/2024
Decision date
3 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No