Gravesham Borough Council

Case Summary

Marina Dudding's claims against Gravesham Borough Council for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were found to be well-founded. The tribunal established that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Moderate Depressive Episode, and agoraphobia. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by revoking hybrid working arrangements and imposing early start times, which caused substantial disadvantage to the claimant. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing.

The claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities (GAD, MDE, and agoraphobia) by revoking hybrid working arrangements and imposing an early start requirement of 9:00am, which placed her at substantial disadvantage. The tribunal found the respondent knew or ought to have known of her disabilities and the disadvantage caused, yet took no reasonable steps to accommodate her needs as required by the Equality Act 2010.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant was unfairly dismissed
• •Whether claimant was a disabled person within Equality Act 2010 (GAD, MDE, agoraphobia)
• •Whether respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for disability
• •Whether claimant received unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability
• •Whether respondent applied indirect disability discrimination
• •Office-only requirement and withdrawal of hybrid working as PCPs
• •Early start requirement (9:00am) as a PCP

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Marina Dudding Respondent: Gravesham Borough Council Heard at: London South (by CVP) On: 3, 4, 5 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge O’Neill Ms Cook Mr Dixon REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Mr Ilhangaratne, counsel Respondent: Ms Cheng, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT 1) The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. 2) At the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Moderate Depressive Episode and agoraphobia. 3) The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is well- founded and succeeds. 4) The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability is well-founded and succeeds. 5) The complaint of indirect disability discrimination is well-founded and succeeds. 2 REASONS THE HEARING 1. The Tribunal dealt with the following procedural issues: 1.1. The Claimant confirmed that there were no applications to amend the pleaded case; and 1.2. The Claimant produced an updated Schedule of Loss and Appendix 6 and the Respondent confirmed that these were not new documents. 2. The Tribunal addressed the timetabling issue by explaining that although the hearing had originally been listed for four days, judicial availability constraints meant that the hearing could only be conducted over three days that week. It was noted that: 2.1. the indicative timetable agreed at the case management hearing in July 2025 recorded that ‘Day 4’ was to reserved for Tribunal decision making in any event, and 2.2. that if the matter were re-listed then it would likely be for October 2028. 3. On that basis neither party made an application to postpone the hearing. It was agreed that the three days would cover liability only, with remedy being reserved. 4. The Tribunal conf…