Mrs C White v Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd — 2023

Mrs C White brought claims arising from her return to work as a Field Assessor during the Covid-19 pandemic, including protected disclosure detriment claims, disability discrimination, victimisation and arrears of pay. The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing complaints because none of PIDs 1-6 were qualifying disclosures: although they were disclosures of information, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have a reasonably held belief that they were made in the public interest, and did not reasonably believe they showed a breach of legal obligation or endangerment. The tribunal found that the correspondence was directed primarily to her own return-to-work position and that the respondent had taken steps it regarded as sufficient to create a safe system of work.

The tribunal accepted that Mrs White was disabled for Equality Act purposes because the side effects of her hypertension medication caused her to need the toilet frequently. It did not accept that hypertension alone made her a high-risk Covid-19 patient, and it found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the disability until it received the first occupational health report on 1 September 2020. As a result, complaints based on the June 2020 return-to-work decisions, the furlough decision, and the 5 August 2020 grievance outcome failed because they fell before the knowledge date.

The remaining disability claims also failed. The tribunal found that the respondent did not require the claimant to return to work on 27 October 2020, did not conclude that she should continue to use public toilets, and did not pressurise her on 29 January 2021 to return on a trial basis. It also held that homeworking, call-centre work and video-assessment duties were not reasonable adjustments on the facts found, because there was insufficient suitable work and the call-centre role could not reasonably be done from home. The tribunal found the claimant ultimately accepted that there were no adjustments the respondent could make to permit a return to the Field Assessor role.

The victimisation claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal held that detriment 5, concerning the handling of the Second Grievance, amounted to victimisation because the decision not to hold a formal meeting was significantly influenced by the protected act of the 29 January 2021 discussion about reasonable adjustments. The other victimisation allegations failed. Liability was determined only, and the case was listed for a separate remedies hearing, so no monetary award was fixed in this judgment.