[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-295214-105":59,"doc-detail-295214-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","miss-s-billing-driving-and-vehicle-standards-agency-dvsa-reserved-judgment","Miss S Billing Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) - Reserved Judgment","","Employment Tribunal reserved judgment in case 2300985/2018 concerning claims brought by Miss S against the DVSA. The Tribunal finds the claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal well founded and upheld. Direct disability discrimination and indirect disability discrimination claims fail and are dismissed. The Tribunal upholds unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability and the failure to make reasonable adjustments, while considering related issues about investigation, misconduct belief, procedural fairness, and proportionality of responses.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/miss-s-billing-driving-and-vehicle-standards-agency-dvsa-reserved-judgment/295214/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/miss-s-billing-driving-and-vehicle-standards-agency-dvsa-reserved-judgment/295214.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Olivia Brown","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Which claims were upheld by the Tribunal in case 2300985/2018?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The Tribunal found the claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal well founded, and also upheld the claim of unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability and the claim of failing to make reasonable adjustments.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Which disability discrimination claims were dismissed?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The claim of direct disability discrimination failed and was dismissed, and the claim of indirect disability discrimination also failed and was dismissed.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What key questions did the Tribunal consider for unfair dismissal?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The Tribunal addressed whether the employer genuinely believed misconduct, whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds and sufficient investigation, whether the conduct could reasonably be treated as gross misconduct, whether the dismissal was within a range of reasonable responses, and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, including any compensation reduction considerations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},295214,1789714882,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},16904993612988,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Case No: 2300985/2018  \nEMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS  \nBETWEEN  \nCLAIMANT V  RESPONDENT  \nMiss S Billing Driving and Vehicle Standards  \nAgency (DVSA)  \nHeard at: London South Employment Tribunal  \nOn: 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 November 2019 in Chambers on 7 February 2020  \nBefore: Employment Judge Hyams-Parish  \nMembers: Members: Mr N Shanks and Mr M McDonald  \nRepresentation:  \nFor the Claimant: Miss S Berry (Counsel)  \nFor the Respondent: Mr J Dixey (Counsel)  \nRESERVED JUDGMENT  \nThe claim of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.  \nThe claim of wrongful dismissal is well founded and succeeds.  \nThe claim of direct disability discrimination fails and is dismissed.  \nThe claim of unfavourable treatment for something arising in consequence of disability is well founded and succeeds.  \nThe claim of indirect disability discrimination fails and is dismissed.  \nThe claim of failing to make reasonable adjustments is well founded and succeeds.  \nCase No: 2300985/2018  \nREASONS  \nClaim(s)  \n1. By a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 26 March 2018, the Claimant  \nbrings claims (“the claims”) of unfair and wrongful dismissal, and disability discrimination against the Respondent.  \nLegal Issues  \n2. The following questions were agreed by the parties as those which the Tribunal need to answer in order to determine the claims. These have been used as the basis for the Tribunal’s analysis and conclusions at paragraphs  \n106 onwards below.  \nUnfair dismissal  \na. Did the Respondent genuinely believe the Claimant to be guilty of misconduct?  \nb. Was that belief based on reasonable grounds?  \nc. At the time of forming that belief, had the Respondent carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances?  \nd. Was it reasonable for the Respondent to regard that conduct as gross misconduct on the facts of the case?  \ne. Did the dismissal fall within the range of reasonable responses open for the Respondent to take?  \nf. Was the dismissal procedurally fair?  \ng. If the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair, should there be a “Polkey”reduction in the compensation awarded and if so, by how much?  \nh. Did the Claimant contribute to the dismissal and if so, by how much, if any, should any basic and compensatory awards be reduced?  \nWrongful dismissal  \ni. Did the Claimant commit a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the Respondent to treat the contract as at an end and dismiss the Claimant summarily?  \nCase No: 2300985/2018  \nDirect discrimination  \nj. Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably, than it treats, or would treat, others, by:  \ni. Failing to support the Claimant.  \nii. Deciding to carry out an investigation notwithstanding her disability.  \niii. Not taking steps as recommended by Occupational Health (“OH”) .  \niv. Proceeding with the investigation and suspending the Claimant notwithstanding her disability.  \nv. Not making allowances for the Claimant because of her disability during the investigation.  \nvi. Dismissing the Claimant without properly considering the recommendations of Mr Cogo.  \nk. Was the reason for that less favourable treatment that the Claimant was a disabled person?  \nDiscrimination arising in consequence of disability  \nl. Did the Respondent treat the Claimant unfavourably by:  \ni. Failing to support the Claimant.  \nii. Deciding to carry out an investigation notwithstanding her disability.  \niii. Not taking steps as recommended by OH.  \niv. Proceeding with an investigation and suspending the Claimant notwithstanding her disability.  \nv. Not making allowances for the Claimant because of her disability during the investigation.  \nvi. Dismissing the Claimant without taking into account the recommendations of Mr Cogo.  \nm. Was the above unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, the something being the Claimant’s conduct towards others and her manner towards them which the Respondent managers perceived in a certain way.  \nCase No: 2300985/2018  \nn. Can th","cbCaiat8Qii8SyQt","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiat8Qii8SyQt","pdf",717555,37,"English","# Reasons\n## Claim(s)\n## Legal Issues\n### Unfair dismissal\n### Wrongful dismissal\n### Direct discrimination\n### Discrimination arising in consequence of disability\n### Indirect discrimination\n### Failing to make reasonable adjustments","[{\"question\":\"Which claims were upheld by the Tribunal in case 2300985/2018?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal found the claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal well founded, and also upheld the claim of unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability and the claim of failing to make reasonable adjustments.\"},{\"question\":\"Which disability discrimination claims were dismissed?\",\"answer\":\"The claim of direct disability discrimination failed and was dismissed, and the claim of indirect disability discrimination also failed and was dismissed.\"},{\"question\":\"What key questions did the Tribunal consider for unfair dismissal?\",\"answer\":\"The Tribunal addressed whether the employer genuinely believed misconduct, whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds and sufficient investigation, whether the conduct could reasonably be treated as gross misconduct, whether the dismissal was within a range of reasonable responses, and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, including any compensation reduction considerations.\"}]","Miss S Billing Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) - Reserved Judgment | PDF",93]