Miss R Dovkants v Cathedral Leasing Limited — 2020

The claimant, Miss R Dovkants, was employed by Cathedral Leasing Limited from 13 May 2019 until 24 July 2019. The tribunal accepted that she had a disability within the meaning of section 6 EqA 2010, namely Emotional Unstable Personality Disorder, and it recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed on 8 November 2019 because she did not have sufficient length of service. The remaining complaints before the tribunal were direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments, and disability-related harassment.

The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence on a number of disputed factual issues. It found that Stephanie Rogers did tell the claimant to remain calm before the Tamworth training, but did not say "calm your personality down"; that the alleged 26 June 2019 comment about a personality disorder, yellow jacket and umbrella was not made; and that the 10 July 2019 email and questions about the impact of her mental health were prompted by a stressful car breakdown and were not less favourable treatment. It accepted that the respondent later accessed the claimant's vehicle tracker to examine her working day, but found that this was done because of performance concerns and the need to understand what was happening, not because of disability.

The direct discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal held that the 22 July 2019 instruction to cold call for new contracts was a management instruction given to maximise sales, and that the decisions not to tell the claimant in advance about the 24 July meeting, not to offer accompaniment, and not to follow the full disciplinary procedure were part of the respondent's abbreviated procedure for employees in their first 24 months of service. It found that the dismissal on 24 July 2019 was driven by concerns about productivity, the structure of the claimant's days, attendance at appointments, following instructions, attitude and administration, and not because of disability. The harassment complaints failed because the conduct found was not related to disability.

The section 15 claim failed overall. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's anxiety and need for support during the 24 July 2019 meeting arose from her disability, but held that the refusal to allow her to be accompanied was caused by the respondent's abbreviated procedure rather than that disability-related need. The section 20/21 reasonable adjustments claim succeeded only on the PCP of not allowing accompaniment at the dismissal meeting: the tribunal found that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, that the respondent knew or should have known of that disadvantage by 12 July 2019 from the occupational health report, and that allowing a companion was a reasonable step. The tribunal rejected the other PCPs relied on, and did not determine remedy in this judgment, directing that remedy would be dealt with at a further hearing if necessary.