Claimant v Respondent — 2021

The claimant began as a volunteer in October 2019 and was appointed in January 2020 as a dementia outreach worker for one day a week. Her role required online training during the first 40 weeks, and when the pandemic required her to work from home she experienced difficulties balancing work, training and home circumstances. By August 2020 C had concluded that the claimant was progressing too slowly, was making GDPR errors and was not following instructions, and a performance improvement plan was started.

The protected disclosure claim turned on the webchat of 22 September 2020 and an email of 5 October 2020 about a PIP MR report. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was concerned about the client's interests, but held that neither communication amounted to a protected disclosure. On 22 September D had already reviewed the report and another supervisor was available, so the claimant could not reasonably believe the respondent would fail to act in the client's best interests or expose the client to health and safety risk. The same reasoning defeated the 5 October email, because the report had already been reviewed and sent.

On the disability issues, the tribunal found that the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know from 17 August 2020 that the claimant had anxiety and depression, and it accepted that the claimant had also alluded to Asperger's and ADHD-type tendencies. The tribunal relied on the claimant's account of the 17 August meeting, where she said she was under extreme stress at home and struggling with instructions, and it concluded that C should have made further enquiries. The respondent accepted actual knowledge of anxiety by 20 October 2020, but the tribunal found earlier constructive knowledge for the purposes of the Equality Act claims.

The direct discrimination claims failed. As to the disciplinary report and its being sent to the claimant's home, the tribunal found that C did not know the claimant was disabled when she prepared and sent it on 14 October 2020. As to the separate criticism of the claimant for attending work early on 7 September 2020, the tribunal found that C would have criticised any employee who arrived before the allotted time, and that the claimant's early arrival was explained by her broken ankle and the need to allow time to walk from the car park on crutches.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the content, wording and recommendation of the disciplinary investigation report were influenced by the claimant's disabilities, because C became frustrated by the claimant's repeated requests for clarification and support. It nevertheless dismissed the claim because it was not satisfied that the specific act complained of, sending the report to the claimant's home address, was because of something arising in consequence of disability. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed because, before 16 October 2020, the respondent was not shown to know that the training arrangements or home-working equipment placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of disability. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.