Mrs Lambert v EXPD8 Limited — 2019

Mrs Lambert had been employed by EXPD8 Limited since 2014 and had been promoted to Regional Field Manager in 2016. After a June 2018 restructure, her region expanded and on 10 July 2018 she had a lengthy call with Mrs Pilling about her recent absence and workload. The tribunal accepted she was upset and had a panic attack, but found the call was a discussion rather than an interrogation. It held that, taking the alleged matters together, there was no repudiatory breach of contract or breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. At most, the respondent had not provided comprehensive training, but the claimant could obtain HR advice and had accepted the grievance and warning process; the tribunal also found the real reason for resignation was dissatisfaction with the role and salary, and that she was already looking for other work.

On the disability issues, the tribunal asked whether by 10 July 2018 the claimant had a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect. It found her anxiety and stress symptoms were reactions to discrete events in 2017, with no evidence of an underlying condition by that date. In the alternative, it found the effects were not substantial and not long term, because she had largely been able to work and the earlier episodes had not lasted or been shown likely to recur for 12 months. The tribunal therefore held that she was not disabled within s6 Equality Act 2010 and that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that she had a disability.

Because the claimant was not found to be disabled, the harassment claim and the reasonable-adjustments claim both failed. On the harassment allegation, the tribunal also found the 10 July 2018 conversation was a discussion about sickness absence, workload and time recording rather than an interrogation, and it did not accept that the conduct amounted to unlawful harassment. On reasonable adjustments, it accepted that the claimant had worked long hours and had been managing a difficult region, but it did not find a disability-related disadvantage requiring further steps. The breach of contract claim also failed: during the notice period the respondent was entitled to pay SSP only, relying on clause 8 of the contract, which excluded payments above SSP during any notice period.