Cases3311726/2021

Claimant v BerryWorld Limited

8 October 2024Before Employment Judge L CowenWatfordin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)succeeded

Between 8 and 15 March 2021, arriving at a predetermined grievance decision. Ms Wade spoke to Ms Rezk (subject of grievance) before speaking to claimant, sent email suggesting settlement or face tribunal claim, showing predetermination and lack of independence. Tribunal found this was due to disability.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)succeeded

From 3 to 4 March 2021, putting pressure on claimant at meetings to leave job by falsely telling her she had been scored lowest. Claimant was struggling to carry out work duties due to worsening mental health from disability. Ms Rezk lied that line manager had scored her lowest to pressure her into settlement.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)succeeded

Failure to provide suitable chair for working from home between June 2020 and January 2021. Claimant was severely underweight due to anorexia and suffered pain from sitting. She repeatedly complained from May 2020 but chair not provided until January 2021 despite respondent being aware of need.

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

Dismissal was unfair because there was insufficient evidence of genuine redundancy situation. Decision to dismiss claimant was made on 3 March 2021 before any scoring or proper process. Ms Rezk lied about scoring. Reason for dismissal was decision not to continue supporting claimant, not genuine redundancy.

Victimisation(disability)failed

Training detriment occurred before protected act (8 March grievance) so cannot be victimisation. Dismissal: although occurred after protected acts, respondent's intention to dismiss was formed on 3 March 2021 before protected acts, so dismissal not because of protected acts.

Facts

Claimant worked as Business Analyst for agricultural company from August 2018. She had anorexia, depression and anxiety. During COVID pandemic from March 2020 she was furloughed then worked from home in difficult conditions without suitable chair, causing pain due to being underweight. Her mental health deteriorated and she required significant support from managers. On 3-4 March 2021 she was pressured to accept £5,000 settlement to leave, falsely told her line manager had scored her lowest for redundancy. She raised grievance 8 March which HR predetermined, suggesting she would use disability to bring tribunal claim. Formal redundancy process followed but tribunal found no genuine redundancy situation. Dismissed 31 July 2021.

Decision

Tribunal found discrimination in: predetermined grievance outcome; discriminatory email comment about using disability for tribunal claim; pressure to leave job in March meetings; dismissal due to struggling with work from disability; failure to provide suitable chair June 2020-January 2021. Unfair dismissal succeeded as no genuine redundancy - decision made 3 March before proper process, based on not wanting to continue supporting claimant. Most other discrimination and reasonable adjustment claims failed. One discrimination claim (June 2020 comment) found out of time.

Practical note

Employers must not predetermine grievance outcomes or pressure disabled employees to leave by falsely claiming they have been scored for redundancy, and must provide reasonable adjustments like suitable home-working equipment when repeatedly requested.

Legal authorities cited

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501Anya v University of Oxford [2001] ICR 847London Borough of Islington v Ladele [2009] ICR 387Gould v St John's Downshire Hill 2021 ICR 1Williams v Trustees of Swansea University 2019 ICR 230Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Higgins [2014] ICR 341General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza 2015 ICR 169Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.23Equality Act 2010 s.27Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111AEquality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20

Case details

Case number
3311726/2021
Decision date
8 October 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
agriculture
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
App Support, promoted to Junior Business Analyst
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No