Ms L Jiang v Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd: 2205536/2018

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2205536/2018
Between
Ms L JiangClaimantLes Ambassadeurs Club LtdRespondent
Date 20 October 2020

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s application dated 10 March 2020 (as submitted by email dated 12 March 2020) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 26 February 2020 is refused.

REASONS

There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]The new evidence mentioned by the Claimant is evidence that could have been obtained in time for the original hearing. We were, in any event, presented with medical evidence at the original hearing and made findings about it. We concluded that the Claimant met the definition for “disability” within the meaning of Equality Act 2010.[2](a) During the hearing the Claimant was a litigant in person. She had the support of her husband who sat at the table with her and helped to suggest questions for the Claimant to put to witnesses, and did ask some questions directly. The tribunal had breaks as appropriate during the hearing and told the Claimant that she could ask for breaks.(b) The allegations of direct discrimination are as set out in the list of issues. We reached conclusions on each of those.[3](a) The application for reconsideration misquotes paragraph 130. The actual quote is “The dismissal was because of the absence, but the absence was not because of the disability.”(b) Our conclusion was that if the appeal officer had carried out additional investigations, then – in our judgment – it seemed unlikely that there was additional evidence that would have demonstrated that the reason that the Claimant did not attend work on 26 April 2017 was something caused by her disability. It was not sufficient for the Claimant to argue that the appeal officer could have obtained evidence that the Claimant had particular medical conditions which affected her some of the time.(c) The Claimant was not dismissed because she was absent due to a mental impairment rather than a physical one; she was dismissed because the employer did not believe that any impairment (of any description) had prevented her attending work. The Claimant did not satisfy us that her absence from work was something which arose in consequence of her disability. Page 1 of 2 Case No: 2205536/2018[4]The issue in relation to ACAS early conciliation was an issue which we thought needed to be addressed, and so we addressed it. It did not prevent us dealing with the substantive issues of the claims on their merits.[5]Our reasoning was as set out in our written reasons, and we were not influenced by any consideration of what settlement offers may or may not have been made.