Claimant v Lucksbridge Horticulture Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant unequivocally withdrew her direct disability discrimination claim during the hearing. The tribunal did not need to make findings on the merits of this claim.
The tribunal found that while the claimant was disabled and dismissed (unfavourable treatment), she failed to prove that the performance issues that led to dismissal arose from her disability. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that concerns about work speed related to her pace when actually working, not time spent using the toilet. The claimant's sickness absence was unrelated to her disability. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was for poor performance that did not arise from her disability.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a general nursery worker from April 2022 and dismissed during her probationary period in June 2022. She suffered from bile acid malabsorption (BAM) which required frequent toilet breaks. The respondent was aware of her condition from the outset and made some accommodations. However, the respondent raised numerous concerns about her work performance including speed, quality, and accuracy throughout her short employment. The claimant had one period of sickness absence unrelated to her disability. She was dismissed for poor performance.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 due to her BAM condition, and the respondent knew or ought to have known of her disability. However, her s.15 claim failed because she did not prove that the performance issues leading to dismissal arose from her disability. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that concerns about work speed related to her pace when working, not time spent using the toilet, and that her sickness absence was unrelated to disability.
Practical note
In s.15 discrimination claims, claimants must establish clear causal links between their disability and the 'something arising' that led to unfavourable treatment; generalised assertions without specific evidence of how the disability affected performance will not succeed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2602047/2022
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- agriculture
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- General nursery worker
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No