Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal found that Mrs H Carr's complaints of disability discrimination and harassment succeeded. Key facts include: (1) The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who did not disclose her condition during her 2017 job interview for Fleet Administrator. (2) After her diabetes became known to colleagues, including a flippant comment about hypoglycemic shock from a coworker, the Respondent conducted an HR meeting and introduced her to first aiders in a manner that caused embarrassment. (3) The Claimant was warned that if her blood sugar levels fell below 5, she risked dismissal, and Ms Goodwin covered for her during a low blood sugar incident. (4) The Respondent failed to follow its own probation procedures, did not provide adequate feedback or opportunities for improvement, and terminated her employment after two months. The Tribunal concluded her disability was a significant factor in the dismissal, not her performance.
Issues
- The Tribunal assessed whether Lauren Goodwin's public introduction of the Claimant as 'Hollie the diabetic' to first aiders, without consulting her, created a humiliating environment. The action was found to be related to her disability and to have violated her dignity by associating her identity with her condition in a face-to-face setting.
- The Tribunal considered whether Gaynor Impiazza's email comment, which included a shocked emoji and a flippant reference to the Claimant's diabetes-related hypoglycaemic shock, created a hostile work environment and amounted to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The comment was deemed to have a purpose or effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an adverse environment due to her disability.
- The Tribunal evaluated if the HR meeting's invasive and heavy-handed questioning of the Claimant about her diabetes, including asking to see her medication and orange juice, constituted direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The questioning was found to be unreasonable and linked to her disability, but the Tribunal concluded it would have occurred similarly for another employee with a disability.
- The Tribunal determined that the Claimant's dismissal was primarily motivated by her disability (Type 1 Diabetes) and the Respondent's concerns about her driving ability, despite no proven performance deficiencies. The Respondent failed to demonstrate a non-discriminatory reason for termination, and the judgment concluded her disability was a significant factor.
- The Tribunal examined whether the Claimant was treated less favorably for not disclosing her diabetes during the interview. While the Respondent argued it was a procedural issue, the Tribunal found the subsequent actions (e.g., urgent HR meeting, public introduction) were directly tied to her disability and would not have occurred for a non-diabetic employee.
Holdings
- The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent harassed the Claimant by making flippant comments about her diabetes (e.g., 'as long as she doesn't go into hypoglycemic shock anytime soon!!!') and creating an adverse work environment through invasive questioning about her condition and public disclosure of her health status during meetings.
- The Employment Tribunal found that the Respondent engaged in direct disability discrimination by treating the Claimant less favourably due to her Type 1 Diabetes. Key findings include: (1) the Respondent would not have offered her the job if she had disclosed her diabetes during the interview; (2) the Respondent created a hostile work environment by introducing her to colleagues as 'the diabetic' and failing to accommodate her condition appropriately.
Remedies
The Employment Tribunal determined the Claimant is entitled to a remedy for successful disability discrimination and harassment claims. A date for a remedy hearing will be fixed once the parties send in their dates to avoid up to 30 January 2019.
Legal Principles
The Employment Tribunal applied the shifting burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring the employer to demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons once the claimant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and harassment.
Precedent Name
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Bahl v The Law Society
- Aylott v Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Cited Statute
Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
- T Brown
- Jones
- S Dugmore
Passage Text
- The complaints of disability discrimination and harassment have succeeded.
- It is our judgment that the Claimant's Type1 Diabetes was a significant factor in the Respondent's decision to dismiss her. ... It is also this Tribunal's judgment that a person with a different disability, with the Claimant's level of competence, (making the same level of mistakes that she did) would not have been dismissed.
- It is our judgment that the way in which the meeting with HR came about, the incident where Ms Goodwin introduced the Claimant to the first aiders and the fact that Ms Goodwin and Mr Kuyper both told her that she ought to have told the Respondent about her diabetes at interview; were all acts of less favourable treatment towards the Claimant because of her disability.