Miss S Murphy, Claimant’s Mother For the v Respondent — 2022

Miss Hannah Murphy worked as a room attendant at Fowey Hall Hotel from 8 September 2018 until she resigned on 26 March 2021. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled within the Equality Act because of ASD, ADHD and anxiety, and it preferred the respondent's evidence and contemporaneous documents where there was conflict. It found that the respondent investigated the claimant's complaints through informal and formal grievance stages, including decisions dated 3 November 2020, 2 March 2021 and 11 February 2021.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed. The tribunal rejected the pleaded incidents involving Storm Moore, including the alleged derogatory manner of speaking, whistling in a discriminatory way, the alleged mask comments, the 'never worked with someone like her' and 'I forgot how to talk to you' remarks, the alleged panic attack incident, the grievance witness statement complaint, and the pay comparison with Ellie Sweggs and Charlotte Pennington. It found no facts from which less favourable treatment because of disability could be inferred.

The harassment claim also failed because the tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged December 2020 complaint letter, the January 2021 card, the May 2021 street incident, the June/July 2021 pornographic photographs, or the abusive mock reference letter to the respondent. The victimisation claim failed even though the 2 October 2020 email headed 'disability discrimination' was a protected act, because Mr Naustion's decision not to recall the claimant after furlough was driven by reduced staffing needs, incomplete training, and his view about assistance, not by the complaint.

The constructive dismissal claim failed. Applying the statutory and case-law tests on constructive dismissal and trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the respondent had investigated the grievances, there was no breach of the ACAS Code, the return-to-work decision was not predetermined, and the 25 March 2021 training-day incident did not amount to a repudiatory breach. As there was no fundamental breach, the claimant resigned rather than being dismissed, and all claims were dismissed.