Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant succeeded in claims of direct disability discrimination (SLT lied about her being unhelpful/difficult and her Adaptions Officer role), victimisation (false descriptions influencing grievance outcomes), unfavourable treatment arising from disability (reprimanding her BSL interpreter on 24 September 2021), and failure to make reasonable adjustments (denying remote work from September 2020 to February 2021). The remaining complaints, including indirect discrimination, were dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent's actions were less favourable treatment because of the claimant's deafness and that reasonable adjustments (allowing remote work) were not made. The claimant's remedy will be determined at a separate hearing.
Issues
- The Tribunal examined whether the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of her deafness, including reprimanding her BSL interpreter during a meeting and failing to adjust communication practices under Equality Act 2010 section 15.
- The Tribunal found the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not allowing the Claimant to work from home during the 2020-2021 pandemic period, despite evidence showing it would have reduced her anxiety and supported her recovery under Equality Act 2010 sections 20 & 21.
- The Tribunal addressed direct disability discrimination claims where the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) made false statements to the Governors in February 2021, including portraying the Claimant as unhelpful and difficult, and misrepresenting her role as Adaptions Officer under Equality Act 2010 section 13.
- The Tribunal determined the Respondent victimized the Claimant by falsely describing her as unhelpful and difficult in grievance statements after she raised a complaint of discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 27.
Holdings
- The successful claims were brought within the time limit set by the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing nature of the discrimination and justified the time extension.
- The remaining complaints, including indirect discrimination claims, were dismissed as not well-founded. The Tribunal found no link between these claims and the Claimant's disability.
- The Claimant succeeds in claims of direct disability discrimination, victimisation, unfavourable treatment arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Tribunal found the Senior Leadership Team lied about her being unhelpful and her role as Adaptions Officer, and that reprimanding her BSL interpreter on 24 September 2021 constituted unfavourable treatment. The failure to allow her to work from home (1 September 2020 to 3 February 2021) was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
- Remedy for the upheld claims will be determined at a separate hearing. The Tribunal noted the Claimant's mental health impact and the need for deaf awareness training, but no immediate financial remedy was awarded.
Remedies
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant's remedy for the upheld claims of direct disability discrimination, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments will be decided at a separate hearing. This includes financial compensation, injury to feelings, and potential recommendations for the respondent to reduce adverse effects. A separate remedy hearing was listed in due course following the judgment.
Legal Principles
- Under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal evaluated if the respondent's treatment of the claimant (e.g., removing her from email lists) was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims like protecting staff well-being. The standard of proof required the respondent to demonstrate proportionality and legitimacy.
- The claim included allegations that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments (e.g., allowing remote work, ensuring meeting accessibility) under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, which were not among the predefined legal principles.
- The Tribunal applied the two-stage test for direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. This involved first determining whether the claimant proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred, and second whether the respondent showed the treatment was not because of disability. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent after the claimant established a prima facie case of discrimination.
Precedent Name
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Igen v Wong
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lux
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire
- Hensman v Ministry of Defence
- Environment Agency v Rowan
Cited Statute
- Burden of Proof Directive (97/80/EEC)
- Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
C Lewis
Passage Text
- 180. We find that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments from September 2020 and that was ongoing until February 2021.
- 138. The Claimant relied on Ms Hamill's statements in the grievance interviews as saying that she was being unhelpful and difficult. We have found that in her interviews with Mr Gardner, Ms Hamill did seek to portray the Claimant as being unhelpful and difficult. We have not found this to be an accurate or fair description of the Claimant's actions or approach.
- 165. We accept that the way that the matter was dealt with by the Respondent left the Claimant feeling excluded and Ms Starr feeling that she had been criticised and her professionalism called into question. We find that this was unfavourable treatment of the Claimant who reasonably felt that her BSL interpreter was being told off for doing her job and for acting as her voice.