Mrs S Bradley v Integra Supported Housing Walsall Limited — 2024

Mrs S Bradley brought claims arising out of her resignation on 29 September 2022 and the respondent's handling of the later grievance and appeal process. The tribunal held that she had resigned rather than been dismissed, and that the July 2021 and September 2022 management enquiries into contactability and overtime did not amount to accusations of fraud or falsification. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities and s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, the unfair dismissal claim failed.

The disability discrimination claims were largely unsuccessful. The claimant withdrew her direct disability discrimination complaint during the hearing. Her s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the respondent's appeal invitation did not require attendance in the way alleged and expressly allowed alternative arrangements. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed: the tribunal found that the relevant PCPs were either not applied to the claimant or were met by the adjustments the respondent offered, including written process and an extension of time. The tribunal found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled until at least 17 October 2022.

The harassment claim succeeded. The tribunal held that comments made by Mr Allen during the grievance investigation about the claimant's mental health, including speculation about a personality disorder, were related to disability and were capable of creating an offensive environment. Liability was found, but remedy was reserved for a later hearing.

The victimisation claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal found that the decision not to accept the claimant's retraction of her resignation was materially influenced by the grievance and discrimination allegations she had raised on 17 October 2022, and that the respondent did not call Mr Allen, the decision-maker, to explain his reasons. The other alleged detriments failed, including complaints about the handover meeting, grievance timing, appeal arrangements, Citation's involvement, and the vehicle allegation. On the vehicle issue, the tribunal found the respondent did incur a £765 charge for minor remedial works and rejected the suggestion that the accusation was false.