Claimant v The University of Huddersfield — 2021

The claimant was employed by the University of Huddersfield from 1 December 2006 to 30 June 2020, most recently as an Academic Skills Tutor. The respondent accepted that her conditions, including autism with ADHD traits, Borderline Personality Disorder, Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety, cardiac and respiratory problems, and an eating disorder, were disabilities for Equality Act purposes. The tribunal dismissed the claim in full: unfair (constructive) dismissal, disability discrimination, and harassment all failed.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's workload increased during 2018/19 but found that Dr Allan did take steps to assist her, including directing her to focus more on maths teaching and the School recruiting additional support. It also found that the course redesign did not materially increase her workload in the way alleged. The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach contract by failing to respond to the workload issue and did not fail to implement the 26 September 2019 occupational health recommendations, because it kept in contact, discussed phased return and support options, and obtained templates for a stress risk assessment and wellbeing plan.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's direct discrimination and reasonable adjustments complaints about her PTSD and autism. It found no reason in 2018 to seek specialist support for PTSD, because occupational health had previously said she was managing and the respondent was not aware of any change linked to PTSD. As to autism, the tribunal found that Dr Allan and HR did not know of the diagnosis until 27 February 2020, that the respondent offered an occupational health review in March 2020, and that the claimant did not take it up. It further held that the policies relied on by the claimant did not amount to a PCP of failing to support mental health or failing to implement occupational health recommendations, and that the respondent's sickness absence, dignity at work and health and safety policies were broad enough to cover mental health and disability.

The tribunal rejected the claims based on Dr Allan's April 2020 emails, Ms Sivori's May 2020 emails, and the 21 May 2020 Zoom meeting. It found the April emails were a continuation of earlier discussions about whether the claimant was fit for work or wished to proceed by resignation, and were not unfavourable treatment or harassment. It found Ms Sivori's emails were responsive to the claimant's own correspondence, and that the 21 May meeting gave the claimant a substantial opportunity to speak, with her union representative present. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had not provided occupational health advice about how her communication difficulties should be managed.

Finally, the tribunal dismissed the allegations arising from Dr Allan's comments in the 2 July 2020 grievance interview. It found that the reference to seeing things through a 'particular lens' was not related to autism and that the 'rollercoaster' comment was made in the context of describing the claimant's life experience and working relationship during a grievance investigation. The claimant's employment ended by agreement on 30 June 2020 after she had given written notice on 24 May 2020. No remedy was awarded because every claim failed.