In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms Kaur brought complaints that Lloyds Banking Group failed to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The respondent accepted that she was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, anxiety, stress and panic attacks. The tribunal found, however, that before proceedings were issued on 28 April 2020 the respondent did not actually know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she had those conditions or that she was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage because of them.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had referred at times to being low, having low mood, feeling anxious, and having mental health effects, but found that those references were made in the context of her mother’s illness, her experience in the first placement, and her grievance about perceived workplace bullying. It rejected her evidence that she had told Mr Rutkowski in April 2019 that she had a history of depression and anxiety. It also found that, in the January 2020 three-way call with Mr Brown and Mr Sempezis, the word "anxiety" was used in the sense that she felt anxious about returning to a team environment, not as a disclosure that she had the condition anxiety.

The tribunal considered the documents relied on by the claimant, including her grievance, the counsellor’s letter of 29 November 2019, and the GP letter of 4 February 2020. None of them referred to an underlying mental health condition in a way that would have put the respondent on notice that the claimant had a disability or that she needed adjustments because of it. On the tribunal’s findings, the claimant’s requests for confidence-building and assertiveness support, and later for CBT through BUPA, were presented as responses to the effects of workplace bullying and work-related stress, not as adjustments required because of disability.

The tribunal also found that, even if knowledge had been established, the claim would still not succeed on the facts found. It was prepared to assume that the claimant experienced a substantial disadvantage when engaging with stakeholders and collaborative working, but held that the respondent had no reason to know this was linked to a mental health disability. It also doubted that the specific steps relied on by the claimant were reasonable adjustments in the circumstances, and noted that the Swarthmore training request was eventually overtaken by the pandemic and that the claimant was seeking reimbursement of the BUPA excess rather than provision of CBT itself. The complaint was therefore dismissed in full.