Miss C Cullimore v J Foley and Adult Homecare Ltd T/a Right at Home: 1600152/2019

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1600152/2019

Between

Miss C CullimoreClaimant

J Foley and Adult Homecare Ltd T/a Right at HomeRespondent

Before

Employment Judge R Harfield

In person for claimant

Mr Jackson (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Mr C Murray (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 13 July 2022

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s complaint of breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 is dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The claimant’s complaints of disability discrimination continue. _________________________________ Employment Judge R Harfield Dated: 2 September 2020 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 8 September 2020 ………………………………………………. FOR THE SECRETARY OF EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Case Number: 1600152/2019 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Claire Cullimore Respondents:(1) James Foley

(2) Adult Home Care Limited trading as Right At Home Swansea Heard at: Cardiff (in public; by video) On: 24th 25th and 26th August 21 and 22nd 23rd and 24th November 21 Before: Employment Judge Howden-Evans Tribunal Member K Smith Tribunal Member L Bishop Representation: Claimant: In person, supported by her aunt, Ms Fanner Respondent: Mr C Murray, Counsel JUDGMENT The Employment Tribunal’s unanimous decision is as follows:

[1]The Second Respondent subjected the claimant to disability discrimination by failing to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments (Sections 20, 21(2), 25(2)(d), 39(2)(c) and 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010). Case Number: 1600152/2019 2

[2]Contrary to s39(2) Equality Act 2010 the Second Respondent has treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of her disability (s15 Equality Act 2010).

[3]The claimant’s claim that she has been harassed because of her disability (per s26 Equality Act 2010) is not well founded and is dismissed. Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.

REASONS

[1]By a letter dated 25 May 2022 the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the response should not be struck out because it has not been actively pursued.

[2]The respondent has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The response is therefore struck out.

[3]The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. _____________________________ Employment Judge Jenkins Date: 13 July 2022 The Claimant is owed arrears of pay of £819.12.

[2]The Claimant is awarded £51,224.22 compensation for injury to feelings and interest thereon (which includes an award of compensation for aggravated damages of £7,000).

[3]The Claimant is awarded £35,857.51 in respect of her past losses and interest thereon. Case Number: 1600152/2019 2

[4]The Claimant is awarded £21,685.48 compensation in respect of her future losses, including loss of earnings and future pension losses.

[5]The Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the net sum of £108,767.21 and must account for the tax and National Insurance due on this sum.

[6]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 do not apply to this judgment. Mr N Roche Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.