Miss A Smith v West Yorkshire Combined Authority — 2021

Miss A Smith began work for West Yorkshire Combined Authority on 8 April 2019 as an Enterprise Co-ordinator. The respondent accepted that she was disabled at the material time by reason of ADHD and dyspraxia, and the tribunal proceeded on the basis that the respondent knew of those disabilities by the end of July 2019. The final claims that were adjudicated were disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and discriminatory constructive dismissal, and all were dismissed.

On the section 15 allegation, the tribunal accepted that Mrs Choma's comment on 18 February 2020 about revisiting the matter and involving a more senior manager amounted to a detriment. It held, however, that the reason for the comment was the claimant's failure to record her hours and whereabouts in the way required, not something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal found that the claimant had not told her managers that those recording issues were caused by dyspraxia, and the claim failed.

The reasonable adjustments claim was more detailed. The tribunal accepted that dyspraxia put the claimant at a comparative disadvantage in some respects, including the speed at which she processed written material, her ability to plan and organise work, and her sensitivity to background noise. It rejected the allegations about caseload, unclear instructions, and the need for a sole-use desk, and held that the respondent had met its duty by providing a fixed desk and later a combined document holder and writing slope. It found that the respondent should reasonably have provided noise-cancelling headphones by 24 January 2020 and a digital pen by mid-November 2019, but the omission period for those failures ended on 24 January 2020 and the claim was not presented until 31 May 2020. The tribunal therefore dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim as out of time, and it did not extend time on a just and equitable basis.

The harassment allegations, all brought as disability-related harassment, were dismissed. They covered the 6 August 2019 capability warning, checking of the claimant's calendar and Carval entries, the 3 December 2019 flexi-leave email, comments made at the 19 December 2019 meeting about a normal working day, the suggestion of an alternative pen and discussion of disability-awareness training, the 30 January 2020 comment about sitting still, and the 18 February 2020 threat of performance management. The tribunal held that the conduct was either not related to disability in the required sense, or did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 EqA.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts on 15 August 2019 and on 9/10 March 2020, but it found no evidence that the extra 1-2-1 meetings, the handling of adjustments and disability leave, or the grievance and appeal process were motivated by those protected acts. It held that the respondent's managers were dealing with genuine performance, attendance and adjustment issues and, in 2020, were also dealing with a substantial COVID-19 workload.