In Mrs V Nimoni v London Borough of Croydon Mrs V Nimoni, 60, worked in the ‘Travel Training Team’ of the council since 2011, a team which supports young people in the borough with disabilities to help them travel independently, before being unfairly sacked.
The successful claim of unfair dismissal came after Mrs Nimoni was injured at work when she fell whilst on a bus, on February 8, 2016. The accident caused injury to her neck, back and knees, leaving her less mobile than she had been before. In April 2019, she also had a mini-stroke and was required to take two months off work, where she then returned. She was then diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May 2022.
But after a restructuring in the team meant that her job became redundant, a role was not found for her, despite Mrs Nimoni applying for various jobs within the council. Mrs Nimoni was dismissed in July 2019 with a letter reading: “It is clear that you are unable to continue permanently in your current role and without exceeding the Council’s sickness trigger points.”
The dismissal caused Mrs Nimoni to spiral into a depressive state and she believed she had been dismissed because of her disabilities – i.e., back problems caused by her accident and psychological symptoms caused by the uncertainty regarding her job role.
Mrs Nimoni said in her oral evidence that her daughter and husband were concerned because it got to the stage where she did not even want to wash or dress.
The employment tribunal judge upheld her complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judge decided that Croydon council should have made greater effort to find Mrs Nimoni a role during the restructuring process. It was decided that she as sacked due to matters arising from her disability.
Croydon council was ordered to pay Mrs Nimoni £91,545.09 due to the loss of earnings during the time she was dismissed and the psychological damage caused as a result.
Employment Judge Ferguson wrote: “The work accident in 2016 is what started the Claimant’s depressive symptoms and they had a “gradual onset” from that date onwards. We do think, however, that it is a fair reading of the report that the Claimant was already suffering from depression to some extent before the acts of discrimination, but the dismissal, as the “catalyst”, was by far the most significant cause of her current depressive illness.”
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
