Ms A Thomas v Welsh Ministers — 2019

Ms Thomas worked for the Welsh Ministers in the Advanced Manufacturing and Materials team and the respondent accepted that her general anxiety disorder was a disability. The claim was brought under s15 Equality Act 2010 and the tribunal applied the approach in Pnaiser, together with the burden of proof provisions in s136. The claimant said a number of events in winter 2017 amounted to discrimination arising from disability, mostly in connection with the Christmas party arrangements and subsequent management contact.

The tribunal upheld only allegation 1. It found that after the claimant emailed on 5 December 2017 saying she felt disadvantaged because of her health issues and later raised the matter through the Equality in the Workplace team, Mr Willox did not fully respond or reassure her. The tribunal accepted that this was unfavourable treatment, and that the claimant's allegation of disability discrimination and related contact were something arising in consequence of her disability. It also found that the reason for the failure to respond was not justified by any legitimate aim and was not proportionate. The tribunal therefore held that the s15 claim succeeded on that allegation.

All remaining allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found there was no unfavourable treatment in requiring the claimant to work on the afternoon of 13 December 2017, because colleagues who attended the Christmas party also used flexi leave or annual leave and there was no 3-line whip. It also rejected the complaint about alternative transport, finding that the claimant had not said before the event that she needed a taxi or support worker, and that the party was a social event for which the respondent would have found it difficult to justify spending public money on transport. The occupational health report claim failed because the report only repeated adjustments already in place and the delay in acknowledging it did not disadvantage the claimant.

The tribunal also rejected the allegations that the line manager ceased contact or support, and that the claimant had been notified of a transfer because she could not use public transport or the telephone. It found that email contact continued, that there was no basis for saying Ms Richards had stopped line management altogether, and that Mr Davies had merely raised possible alternative roles as a supportive option. Because the claimant succeeded only on allegation 1, the tribunal directed that the case proceed to a separate remedy hearing; this judgment did not determine any monetary award.