Mrs C Evans v Maritime and Coastguard Agency — 2022

Mrs Cheryl Evans was employed by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency from March 2002 until her dismissal on 17 September 2019. She had been absent from work from 5 March 2019 with work-related stress. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had refused or not attended several absence-management meetings, but it also found that the second occupational health report said she was fit to attend meetings and that a stress risk assessment had been identified as a way to help her return to work.

The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing her duties and had reasonable grounds to investigate capability, but concluded that the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses because the respondent dismissed too soon. The key failing was that, after the 19 July 2019 meeting, the respondent did not take steps to arrange the stress risk assessment or otherwise properly progress that option before dismissing her. The tribunal also rejected the respondent’s contributory conduct case, and it noted that the appeal officer did not properly engage with the claimant’s grounds of appeal or check relevant material, although the finding of unfair dismissal rested on the earlier decision to dismiss too soon.

The discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved she was disabled for Equality Act purposes at the relevant time. It held that the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities with sufficient detail, and that the claimant’s account was more consistent with work-related stress and unhappiness with workplace events than with a mental impairment meeting the statutory definition. As the disability threshold was not met, the tribunal did not need to determine the remaining s.15 issues.

The direct age discrimination claim was also dismissed. The claimant relied on Sarah McLean as a comparator, but the tribunal found material differences, including that Ms McLean engaged with the absence-management process and had a different situation. It accepted that a hypothetical comparator could be constructed, but found no facts from which it could infer that the dismissal was because of age. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had not shifted the burden of proof on the age claim.