Miss E Goodhead v JC Bamford Excavators Limited — 2023

Miss E Goodhead was a Programme Manager employed by JC Bamford Excavators Limited from 3 June 2019 until she resigned with immediate effect on 21 July 2022. The tribunal accepted that dyslexia was a disability under the Equality Act 2010 and found that the relationship with her line manager, Miss Laura Atkins, became strained after a January 2022 reorganisation increased the claimant's workload and brought the two into closer day-to-day contact. It found that the claimant had generally presented her dyslexia as affecting spelling and proofreading, and that she did not identify other adjustments she needed until after leaving employment.

On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the pleaded allegations relating to the complaint about Matthew Wood, the 1:1 diary invitations, the medical appointment requests, the March meeting about performance, the April project issues and the other team-management incidents. It did find that Miss Atkins' comment at the 9 May 2022 IPIP meeting, 'this won't help then', was directed at the claimant and amounted to less favourable treatment, but it held that the claimant had not shown facts from which discrimination could be inferred because the concerns were about behaviour, deadlines and workload, not dyslexia, and Miss Atkins would have acted similarly towards a comparator in materially similar circumstances. The indirect discrimination claim was confined to the requirement to spell accurately and review information quickly, which the tribunal accepted could disadvantage dyslexic employees in live Teams presentations, but it held that the respondent's response was proportionate in context because accuracy mattered and Miss Atkins was trying to assist the claimant.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the comment after an MRI scan about people with 'half a brain' was unwanted and related remotely to disability through the claimant's migraines, but it held that the comment was not made because of the claimant's migraines and was too remote to amount to the pleaded section 15 claim. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because, outside the one live presentation incident, the claimant generally had time to proofread work or ask for help, Miss Atkins had offered proofreading, and the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent knew the claimant was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage in the way pleaded. The disability-related harassment claim also failed: the tribunal found the MRI comment was related to disability, but in the circumstances it was not reasonable for it to have the required humiliating or offensive effect and it did not reach the statutory threshold.

The tribunal accepted that the IPIP of 9 May 2022 was poorly drafted and that Miss Atkins' management style was blunt and not always supportive, but it found the underlying conduct and performance concerns were genuine and that the grievance process was fair and balanced overall. The grievance was partially upheld, with recommendations that the IPIP be rewritten, anxiety and mediation be discussed, consideration be given to a fresh start or role change, and Miss Atkins undertake dyslexia awareness training, but the tribunal held that the grievance outcome did not amount to a repudiatory breach and did not constitute a last straw. It therefore dismissed the constructive dismissal claim and also dismissed the notice pay / breach of contract claim because the claimant resigned and had not established constructive dismissal.