Mrs Girling (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant and was disabled by ADHD and fibromyalgia. The tribunal found that the school knew of those disabilities. The dispute arose after disability awareness training on 17 May 2018 and the claimant's subsequent contact with colleagues. The tribunal found that on 25 May 2018 Ms Shobbrook told the claimant not to contact her colleagues about the matter, and that the claimant deliberately ignored that instruction. It found that the claimant later went to Ms Payne's house and then texted Ms Thatcher in order to find out what had been said about her.

On the discrimination arising from disability claim, the tribunal accepted that the relevant 'something' could be the claimant's behaviour arising from her ADHD and fibromyalgia, but it held that the warning dated 21 September 2018, and the refusal to retract it on appeal or grievance, were not because of that something. The tribunal found that the warning was imposed because the claimant had deliberately disregarded a reasonable management instruction and had caused distress to colleagues. It further held that, even if the behaviour were sufficiently linked to disability, the respondent had a legitimate aim of maintaining a safe and respectful working environment and that a written warning was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal held that the School's Code of Conduct requirement for high standards of behaviour was a PCP, that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage because her ADHD made her more likely to behave in ways that breached it, and that the respondent knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage. It also held that the decision not to discipline the claimant for what happened at the training was itself a reasonable adjustment. However, it concluded that training for colleagues, workplace coping strategy training for the claimant, or arranging future training before her return to work would not have avoided the disadvantage arising from the PCP. It also concluded that it would not have been reasonable to impose no sanction or to withdraw the warning at appeal or grievance stage. Both claims were therefore dismissed.