Ms T Amber v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service Heard at Leeds — 2024

The tribunal held that Ms Amber had a mental impairment in the form of stress and anxiety, first recorded in occupational-health material in 2020 and still affecting her in 2022. It found that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities, that it was likely to recur, and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability by 4 April 2022 from Dr Smith's occupational-health report; the judgment also states she was disabled no later than 7 April 2022.

The race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that management decided not to move Ms Amber away from Ms Davey's line management, but found that this was for business reasons tied to the structure of the department and the need for her to remain in the team, not because of race. It rejected the comparison with Mr Gray and Ms Schofield as materially different, and it also rejected the suggestion that Ms Hardcastle's 25 July 2022 comments amounted to an inference that the claimant's problems were self-inflicted or that the treatment was race-based.

The reasonable adjustments claim also failed on the pleaded provision, criterion or practice of requiring contact with a manager during sickness absence. The tribunal found that, in substance, the relevant period was the short interval between 13 April 2022, when HR told the claimant to contact Ms Davey, and 25 April 2022, when Mr Sumputh started as her manager. On the evidence it was not satisfied that this PCP placed her at a substantial disadvantage for that fortnight, or that the respondent knew or should have known that it did. The tribunal nevertheless criticised the later handling of her return to work and noted that some safeguards could have been introduced, but those criticisms did not establish the pleaded adjustment claim.

The harassment claim based on sex or conduct of a sexual nature was dismissed. The tribunal preferred Mr McCarthy's evidence about the 24 August 2022 meeting, found that the comments were not related to sex and were not sexual in nature, and held that the claimant's evidence on those matters was not reliable. It also rejected the allegation that he invited her to call him at any time of day or night on 5 October 2022. On 14 October 2022 it accepted that Mr McCarthy referred to "the beauty of the situation" as reassurance, but found that remark was not related to sex or of a sexual nature.

Victimisation succeeded in part. The tribunal held that the 5 and 6 December 2022 pay and fit-note correspondence, the 21 December 2022 email to Ms Lewis, and the 9 January 2023 grievance outcome were detriments caused by protected acts, including the claimant's earlier tribunal proceedings and her December 2022 grievances. It found the tone and content of Mr Brandwood's correspondence were influenced by the claimant's protected acts and that the January 2023 grievance handling was unfair and superficial. The remaining victimisation complaints were dismissed, including the 25 July 2022 discussion and the 19 December 2022 exchange about grievance details and a possible capability meeting.