Ms S Mackenzie-Wintle v The Sheffield College Heard: in Sheffield and, on 23 July, as a hybrid hearing — 2025

The claimant, an associate lecturer at The Sheffield College, was diagnosed with autism in January 2023 and a Reasonable Adjustments Passport was agreed in March 2023. The tribunal found that she was open with colleagues not only about her autism but also about the adjustments and the RAP. It held that the 31 March 2023 meeting with Jane Parr and John Taff was arranged to address communication and marking issues between those two staff members, not to discuss the claimant’s communication skills, and that Ms Parr’s comments in that meeting were not unwanted and were not related to disability.

The tribunal also rejected the other harassment allegations. It found that Ms Parr’s 20 October 2023 conversation with Sally Johnson referred to the claimant working from home, but did not mention autism or reasonable adjustments, and was not unwanted or unreasonable in context. It further found that Ms Parr’s later conversation with Bethan Hyatt about the claimant’s working from home arrangement and RAP was related to disability, but that it was not reasonable for the claimant to regard it as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. All harassment complaints were dismissed, and the tribunal said it did not need to decide the time-limit issues.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s formal grievance of 28 January 2024 and the present proceedings were protected acts. It dismissed the 7 February 2024 WhatsApp message from Katie Marshall-Preece as non-detrimental and not grievance-driven. It found that the 22 February 2024 Valencia comment was a detriment because of its possible consequences, but that it was an ill-judged joke and was not significantly influenced by the protected acts. It also found no detriment or causal link in the March 2024 transfer of Screen Yorkshire, the decision to keep the claimant and Mr Taff separated, the January 2025 comments about why Mr Taff would not work with her, or the brief January 2025 access to the folder on the bank laptop. The separation from Mr Taff was maintained because the working relationship had broken down and because of concerns for staff and students, and the laptop issue was dealt with on advice from HR and the Data Protection Officer, with the DPO concluding that there had been no data breach.