in person For the v Respondent — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing in Miss K Bronson's claims against Vistry Homes Limited. The tribunal was asked to decide whether she was disabled for Equality Act 2010 purposes, when any substantial adverse effect became long-term, whether the respondent knew or ought to have known of disability, and whether her grievance of 4 June 2020 contained a protected disclosure about furlough fraud. The tribunal recorded that she had worked as a sales executive from 1 April 2019 and was dismissed on 18 January 2021 for misconduct.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had Anxiety Disorder and Depression and that from 28 August 2020 her condition had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It found, however, that the evidence available during employment did not show that the impairment was long-term by the dismissal date, and that the respondent was entitled to view her absence as a reaction to work-related stress and disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal relied on the contemporaneous material, including the Occupational Health report of 6 November 2020, which described the condition as unlikely to amount to a qualifying disability at that stage.

The tribunal also found that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a disability during employment. It accepted that later GP correspondence suggested a longer history of mental health difficulties, including reference to 2011, but those matters were not communicated to the respondent while the claimant was employed. The tribunal said the claimant had not given the respondent enough information about the functional effects of her condition to put it on notice that the impairment was long-term or disabling before termination.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the grievance of 4 June 2020 included a protected disclosure. It found that the claimant had identified information suggesting she was being asked to work during furlough, including uploading documents, replying to emails, scanning documents and attending meetings, and that she reasonably believed this tended to show breach of legal obligations under the Job Retention Scheme and possible fraud. It also held that the disclosure was made in the public interest. No monetary remedy was determined at this hearing, and the substantive discrimination, detriment and unfair dismissal claims were not finally decided here.