Chenembo v London Borough of Lambeth
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
- LORD JUSTICE SALES
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mrs. Judith Chenembo appealed a decision by the Employment Tribunal that dismissed her claims of unlawful disability discrimination and unfair dismissal against the London Borough of Lambeth. Her claims were based on numerous absences from work due to illness and her employer's actions, including warnings and meeting requirements. Both the ET and the EAT found that she was not disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and dismissed her claims. The Court of Appeal upheld these decisions, noting that the ET was entitled to its conclusions and there was no ground for the appellant's argument.
Judgment
Lord Justice McCombe:
Introduction
This is an appeal from the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) of 10 October 2013 dismissing the appeal of Mrs Judith Chenembo (“the Appellant”) from the order of the Employment Tribunal (London South) (“ET”), formally entered on 26 March 2012, which dismissed her complaints of unlawful disability discrimination and unfair dismissal brought against her former employer, the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Respondent”).
The Appellant’s employment by the Respondent as a “parking representation and appeal officer” began on 26 April 2004 and ended on 7 September 2010 when her resignation took effect.
Background Facts
The background facts of the case are set out extensively in the judgment of the ET from which it is necessary to pick out only some of the more significant features which affect this appeal.
The ET recites early in its judgment certain personal conflicts that had arisen between the Appellant and her colleagues in the Respondent’s employment. However, the principal feature of the case is the history of the Appellant’s numerous absences from work through illness. In paragraphs 7 to 11 of its judgment the ET set out a number of absences on the Appellant’s part between November 2005 and August 2008, leading to the compilation on 9 November 2008 by the Respondent of an “action plan” directed to meeting the situation.
In November 2008 the Appellant planned to move home with her family from Battersea in London to the Ashford area of Kent, but initially retaining the Battersea property as a “second home”. The final move was apparently delayed until Christmas 2009 because of a need to carry out repairs at the new home. It is clear that this move, from an address relatively close to her place of work to somewhere much further removed, was a significant feature in the difficulties that arose thereafter.
Returning to the history of the Appellant’s absences, on 10 November, a period of three days absence occurred through a stomach upset; between 24 and 28 November 2008 there was a five day absence on account of influenza. After this, on 9 December 2008 a conference was held by the Appellant’s managers with the personnel department concerning her continuing sickness issues. On 23 December 2008 there was a supervision meeting between the Appellant and one of her managers (a Mrs Waitson) when management concerns over her sickness periods (21 days over 10 separate periods) were raised. The Appellant w