Miss K Coyne v South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

The claimant, a domestic assistant with conceded learning difficulties, brought complaints arising from a 17 July 2018 return-to-work meeting with Ms B after a scald injury. Her August 2018 grievance led to a series of investigation meetings on 14 September, 3 October, 23 October and 20 November 2018, with advocates provided at the meetings. A disciplinary hearing concerning Ms B took place on 12 December 2018. The separate sexual harassment complaint was later struck out as out of time, with Employment Judge Shore holding that it was not just and equitable to extend time and that it would have had no prospect of success.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the claimant would have been at a substantial disadvantage if required to attend the relevant grievance and disciplinary meetings without support, and that the respondent knew of that disadvantage. It nevertheless found that the respondent had discharged its duty by providing suitable advocates and by arranging a meeting to verify the minutes, and it held that allowing the claimant's son to attend instead was not a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal rejected the complaint that repeated questions amounted to unfavourable treatment. It accepted that having truthfulness doubted could amount to unfavourable treatment, but concluded that any credibility assessment arose from the serious allegations and the conflicting accounts of what happened on 17 July 2018, rather than from the claimant's learning difficulties or her difficulty in processing questions.

The victimisation claim failed because the claimant did not prove that the alleged detriments by colleagues Abraham, Almus, Vicki Hayley and Ms C occurred. The tribunal noted inconsistencies in the claimant's account of when the alleged change in behaviour began, including the fact that she was absent from work from 22 November 2018, and it found her later dealings with Ms C and Ms Hayley inconsistent with the allegation that they had already been shunning her. The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent, held that the victimisation allegations could not support that claim, and noted that Ms B had been removed from line management once the grievance was raised.