Mr C Murray, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a Crown Prosecutor employed since 1998, brought disability discrimination complaints arising from his return to work after a long absence. The respondent accepted that his anxiety, depression, PTSD and longstanding lower back condition were disabilities and that it knew about them. Occupational health reports in 2018 recommended a phased return, reduced advocacy, home working, reduced workload, mentoring and ergonomic adjustments; Mrs Middleton line managed him from April to October 2018 and Miss Gessey thereafter.

In relation to the mid-year review completed in late October or early November 2018, the tribunal found the claimant knew or should have known that the respondent carried out mid-year reviews and that the review was undertaken in the context of a return-to-work plan which had already adjusted his duties. It held that he was not required to perform at the unadjusted standard of a Senior Crown Prosecutor, so the alleged reasonable adjustment PCP was not made out. The tribunal also found the review was properly completed and that the claim A timing point was not extended.

The tribunal rejected the complaints about the handling of the grievance about the review, including allegations that the grievance investigation and outcome were prolonged and that Ms Casey should have been interviewed. It held those delays were not a continuing PCP but the result of a series of individual failures, and in any event would not have extended time. The tribunal noted that the grievance was partially upheld internally in January 2020, in that objectives should have been tailored to the ease-back duties and HR advice should have been taken before any 'not achieved' rating.

The discrimination arising from disability complaint was also dismissed. The tribunal found the 'not achieved' rating and Mrs Middleton's comments were based on her assessment of the claimant's performance against the return-to-work plan and not on something arising from disability, and that the employer had legitimate aims of honest appraisal and avoiding surprise at year-end. The harassment complaint failed because the comments were objective and measured and did not violate dignity or create the proscribed environment. Claim D, the struck-through complaints in claims B and C, and all victimisation complaints were withdrawn.