In the case of Ms PP v Spericle Ltd T/A Properties on the Market a 29-year-old estate worker awaiting life-changing surgery has been awarded £31,707.34 by an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal following the “unilateral withdrawal” of her previously agreed ability to work from home.
Ms PP, who was left ‘bedridden’ by endometriosis, worked at a Midlands-based estate agency when, after being permitted to work from home, she was suddenly told: “If you’re not well, you should not work.”
Spericle Properties on the Market in Lincoln employed Ms PP from July 2019 until November 2021, when the court heard she was forced to leave her job. Ms PP, diagnosed with endometriosis in 2018, became incapacitated due to illness in 2021 and initially received consent to work from home. However, the real estate agency later withdrew this agreement and deleted it from all company systems and the WhatsApp group.
The judge noted that “the respondent had previously authorised the adjustment but had unilaterally withdrawn it and made it clear in correspondence that it would not be reinstated,” despite the arrangement having previously worked well for both parties.
Employment Judge V Butler, sitting at Nottingham Employment Tribunal, further found that the defendant had “fabricated disciplinary documents relating to the claimant for the purposes of the hearing” and described the director, Mr. Vaddaram, as “a totally unreliable witness.”
The judge concluded, “We find, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegations and disciplinary documents were fabricated for the purposes of this hearing…There was simply no indication in the contemporaneous documents or in the testimony from witnesses that the claimant was subject to disciplinary measures.”
The court determined that the company “made the decision to dismiss the claimant because she requested to work from home as part of an adjustment to accommodate her disability (and submitted a sick certificate confirming this), which they did not want to accept. They refused to reinstate the previously agreed adjustment, even though it worked to the satisfaction of both parties and fired her.”
The judge added, “Even though the respondent had established a potentially fair reason for dismissal, they made no attempt to investigate/consult with the claimant and did not follow any procedures. Consequently, the decision to dismiss would not have been considered a reasonable response.”
Ms PP’s claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were all successful. Of the total £31,707.34 awarded, £15,000 was for injury to feelings. Ms PP told the court she felt like she had been “discarded like trash.”
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.
