Miss W Lewis v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2018

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until dismissal on 15 February 2017 and was disabled by reason of PTSD. The Tribunal found that some alleged disclosures were protected disclosures, including those conceded by the Respondent and the June 2016 emails about reasonable adjustments, but it rejected other alleged disclosures as insufficiently specific or not tending to show the asserted legal breach. The whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaints were dismissed because the Tribunal did not find the relevant decisions were materially influenced by the protected disclosures.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had done protected acts for the purposes of victimisation, including indicating willingness to give evidence in Ms Brelsford-Smith's Equality Act proceedings and complaining about refusal of representation as a reasonable adjustment. However, it dismissed the victimisation complaints because it found the refusal arose from Ms Brelsford-Smith's changed status as a former employee and the dismissal arose from long-term sickness absence and capability, not protected acts.

The reasonable adjustments complaints succeeded in part. The Tribunal found that refusing, for the period 16 May to 17 June 2016, to allow Ms Brelsford-Smith to represent or communicate for the Claimant failed to accommodate the Claimant's communication difficulties. It also found that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not allowing the Claimant to work from home, including on billing or project work, before dismissing her. The complaint based on extending attendance triggers was dismissed because an unspecified further wait was not found likely to avoid the substantial disadvantage.

The section 15 disability discrimination claim and ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The Tribunal found the Respondent had a legitimate aim of requiring regular and effective attendance, but had not shown dismissal was proportionate because home working had not been explored despite previous remote work and the Respondent's resources. The unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed: the Tribunal accepted jurisdiction and contractual effect of the sick pay policy for the relevant purpose, but found the Claimant had not established negligence of the Crown or an assault within the policy terms.