Miss K Linsley-Hood v Camps International Group Ltd — 2019

The tribunal found that Miss K Linsley-Hood had PTSD and that Camps International Group Ltd knew or ought to have known of it by September 2017 at the latest. It accepted that she had referred to her condition at interview and again in the 7 September 2017 meeting with Mr Lacey, and it relied on the distress shown in the 7 September email and the later discussion about needing to face the exit when seated. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not refer her to Occupational Health and did not give her the support or procedural adjustments that her condition required.

The whistleblowing case failed. The tribunal found that the 30 October 2017 meeting and the 1 November 2017 letter did not contain a disclosure of information capable of amounting to a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. It found that the claimant had expressed views and asked for information about fundraising, but had not disclosed information tending to show a breach of charity rules or any other relevant wrongdoing. On that basis, the s.47B detriment claim and the s.103A dismissal claim failed, and the tribunal also found that the alleged 7 September 2017 grievance was not a protected act for victimisation purposes.

The disability claims succeeded in material part. The tribunal found that the respondent operated PCPs including not permitting a companion to meetings that were neither grievance nor disciplinary meetings, giving little or no notice of meetings, failing to warn that a meeting might lead to dismissal, and failing to consider alternatives to dismissal such as redeployment. It held that these PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because she was left unsupported, anxious and unable properly to prepare, and that no reasonable steps were taken to avoid that disadvantage.

The tribunal also upheld the s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim in relation to dismissal. It found that the claimant's need for sick leave, flexible working and longer timescales arose from her PTSD, that the notice to improve and the eventual dismissal were connected to those matters, and that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of performance management. It rejected the s.15 complaint about the notice to improve itself.

The tribunal awarded compensation of £42,284.12, made up of a basic award of £508.00, loss of earnings of £23,848.80, a 15% uplift of £3,577.32, injury to feelings of £14,000.00 and loss of statutory rights of £350.00. It did not award interest.