Miss J Philpott v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2021

The claimant was a disabled person from her thyroid cancer diagnosis. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not give proper consideration to her flexible working request because Mr Reed's mind was closed before the occupational health referral and the respondent did not hold the formal meeting recommended by HR. That section 15 complaint was found substantively well-founded, but it was dismissed because it was brought about six months out of time, there was no continuing act, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that a requirement to work full time in the Health and Safety Business Administrator role and the attendance management policy placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but concluded that the respondent fulfilled its duty by offering the claimant another role with fewer hours and by later adjusting how cancer-related absences would be treated. The Tribunal did not find a relevant practice of failing to record or progress flexible working requests or adjustment assessments in a timely manner.

The harassment complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Reed described the occupational health report using the word alleged and that this upset the claimant, but found the comment was about the quality of the report's contents, was not related to the claimant's disability, and did not objectively violate dignity or create the relevant environment.

The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal found that recording the role change as a variation of contract was accurate and did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence, that the respondent's later handling of sickness absence and adjustment reviews was reasonable, and that the claimant resigned because she had found another job rather than because of any breach of contract.