Mrs R Hussain v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2023

The claimant remained employed by the respondent and brought claims concerning management of her health conditions and workplace arrangements between June 2018 and December 2019. The respondent accepted disability in relation to anxiety and plantar fasciitis during the relevant period, and diabetes from April 2019. The tribunal found the respondent had organisational knowledge of anxiety throughout the relevant period, knowledge of diabetes from diagnosis, and knowledge of plantar fasciitis only from January 2019.

The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claims. It found that the attendance warning, restriction on applying for other roles, refusal or handling of occupational health and DSE matters, volunteering leave decisions, office attendance requirements, phased return arrangements, discussions between managers, and other matters were not because of race, religion or disability. The tribunal generally accepted the respondent's explanations that decisions were based on attendance levels, performance concerns, business needs, policy criteria, or attempts to support the claimant.

The tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustment claims. It accepted that some requirements, including attendance at the workplace and the absence management policy, could place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in relation to plantar fasciitis or anxiety. However, it found that the respondent had taken reasonable steps, including arranging occupational health and DSE input, providing or ordering equipment, permitting temporary homeworking, exploring the Broadway office, considering phased returns, and discussing stress reduction plans. Where homeworking was withdrawn, the tribunal found this was because of genuine performance concerns and that it was not a reasonable adjustment to continue it at that time.

The tribunal also dismissed harassment and victimisation. It found the phased return issue did not amount to harassment related to disability. It found that some alleged protected acts were established, but that the alleged detriments, including DSE handling, leave decisions, equipment provision, desk location, flexitime scrutiny, and sickness absence designation, were not caused by those protected acts. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.