Ms L Whitelock v DL Insurance Services Limited — 2020

The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that the Respondent held a genuine belief that the Claimant had deliberately chosen not to provide annual quotes to VW customers. However, it found that the Respondent did not reasonably investigate or give sufficient consideration to the Claimant's mental health, despite having information about her anxiety, panic attacks, difficulty with VW calls, and requests to move department. The dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and was substantively unfair.

For the section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim, the Tribunal found that the disciplinary warnings and dismissal were unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The relevant something was the Claimant's inability on some VW calls to provide the annual quote, which the Tribunal found was because of anxiety and sometimes panic attacks. The Respondent's legitimate aim of managing conduct and ensuring service was accepted, but the warnings and dismissal were not found to be proportionate.

For reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal found that the PCP requiring customer advisers in motor insurance to meet conduct and disciplinary standards placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It found that moving her to another department or removing VW calls would have been reasonable adjustments, and that the Respondent knew or should have known of the disadvantage. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not guilty of misconduct serious enough to justify summary dismissal, so the notice pay claim succeeded, although no separate notice pay award was made because the same sum was included in the unfair dismissal award.