Mrs S Bradley v The Royal Mint Ltd — 2024

The claimant, formerly Director of HR at the respondent, brought claims of direct disability and sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The sex discrimination claims (direct and indirect) were withdrawn by the claimant on 21 May 2024 and dismissed on withdrawal. The accepted disabilities included depression and (as set out elsewhere in the judgment) related impairments.

The Tribunal found that the section 15 complaint concerning the respondent's refusal to permit rescindment of the claimant's resignation was well founded. In weighing the respondent's legitimate aims against the discriminatory effect on the claimant, the Tribunal concluded the respondent had not implemented proportionate means in achieving its aims, noting in particular a misguided assumption that the claimant was managing her condition because she was paying for a private psychiatrist, where the respondent had arranged higher-level workplace assessments in other appropriate cases but did not do so for the claimant. The remaining section 15 complaints, the direct disability discrimination claim, and the reasonable adjustments claim were dismissed as not well founded.

On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal considered the claimant had tried to fit a reasonable adjustments claim into what was properly a section 15 claim, and that the PCPs relied upon did not work. Applying Tarbuck, the Tribunal held that a failure to refer to Occupational Health cannot amount to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment, and that an allegation of failure to consult about adjustments is not itself a breach of the duty. Remedy on the successful section 15 complaint was reserved to a separate hearing, subject to further necessary findings of fact at that stage.