Chenembo v London Borough Of Lambeth

An Employment Tribunal may reject a reasonable-adjustments complaint where it permissibly finds that a requirement to attend meetings in person did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with an able-bodied person. The tribunal may assess that question by reference to evidence that the claimant attended other appointments and activities.

Where findings on the merits provide an independent and sustainable basis for dismissing disability-discrimination claims, an error requiring reconsideration of disability status will not require remission. The appeal court may dismiss the appeal because resolving disability status could not affect the outcome.

The claimant resigned from employment with the respondent and brought claims for disability discrimination, harassment and constructive unfair dismissal. The London South Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims in reasons promulgated on 26 March 2012.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal had already dismissed the constructive-unfair-dismissal aspect of the appeal. The remaining appeal concerned the Disability Discrimination Act claims. Although the Tribunal's finding that the claimant was not disabled could not stand because it did not address deduced effects, it had also rejected the reasonable-adjustments claims on their merits.

The central issue was whether those alternative merits findings were sustainable, particularly the finding that requiring attendance at meetings in person caused no substantial disadvantage.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal's finding that the claimant was not disabled could not stand because its reasons did not address the deduced effects of her anxiety and depression. Reconsideration of that issue would ordinarily be required.
2. That error was immaterial if the Tribunal's alternative conclusions on the merits of the disability-discrimination claims were sustainable. The formal warning arising from non-attendance at a meeting related only to the constructive-unfair-dismissal claim. That claim was no longer live and the point was irrelevant to the claims under the Disability Discrimination Act.
3. The proposed reasonable adjustment was to deal with meetings by telephone or home visits rather than require personal attendance. The material question was whether the attendance requirement placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage when compared with an able-bodied comparator.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to answer that question negatively. It permissibly relied on its findings that the claimant had attended occupational-health and other appointments, and a job interview, during the relevant period. Those findings supported the conclusion that she could have attended the meeting in question.
5. No error of law was shown in the alternative merits findings. Since a reconsideration of disability status could not change the result, remission would serve no purpose.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the remaining appeal against the dismissal of the disability-discrimination claims.
• Court of Appeal: refused permission to appeal the earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling dismissing the constructive-unfair-dismissal appeal, both on paper and following an oral hearing.
• London South Employment Tribunal: dismissed the claimant's disability-discrimination, harassment and constructive-unfair-dismissal claims in reasons promulgated on 26 March 2012.