GH v UNISON Heard in Leeds — 2023

The claimant was a UNISON member who the tribunal found had two protected characteristics: disability by reason of ADHD and gender reassignment. The dispute arose out of UNISON's support for his complaints against his employer about deadnaming, and the later withdrawal of that support. The tribunal accepted that when the claimant was under stress, ADHD coping strategies could fail him, and that his intense, lengthy communications, hyperfocus and justice sensitivity were manifestations of ADHD in context.

The tribunal rejected the indirect gender reassignment discrimination case and the reasonable adjustments case. It found that the pleaded advice PCP did not disadvantage trans members generally, and that the pleaded "positive relationship" PCP was not in fact the requirement imposed on members: the respondent required respectful treatment, not agreement or a positive relationship with representatives. The gender reassignment harassment and direct discrimination claims also failed, including the pronoun mistakes by Mr Walton and Ms Thomas, which were found to be accidental and not reasonably capable of satisfying section 26.

A number of earlier disability-related allegations were dismissed, including allegations about advice on sick leave and garden leave, sharing information, holiday carry-over, phased return, and some data-breach related communications. The tribunal said some of the advice may have been unreasonable, but it did not amount to unlawful treatment at that stage. It also found that the reasonable adjustments case failed because the pleaded PCP was not present, so no corresponding duty arose on those facts.

The central successful section 15 findings concerned the handling of the employer's settlement offer in January and February 2021. The tribunal found that Ms Sharp and others excluded the claimant from the advice process, gave counsel an incorrect account that he was comfortable with termination, delayed disclosure of the offer, and gave him too little time to consider material that could end his employment. Those steps were found to be unfavourable treatment because of ADHD-related traits, and the tribunal said a less discriminatory approach would have been to give the claimant the offer promptly, involve him in instructions, and allow more time.

The tribunal also upheld disability-related harassment on the 12 February 2021 urgent email and the later withdrawal of legal and workplace support. It found that the 12 February letter, and then the March withdrawal decisions, were unwanted conduct related to disability and reasonably capable of creating a hostile environment in relation to the claimant's membership and dealings with the union. The later appeal and review letters in April and October 2021 were treated as further section 15 contraventions because they repeated the same approach without engaging with the disability issues. The reasons end with liability declarations; no monetary remedy is recorded in the text provided.