Claimant v Council — 2022

The claimant was employed as Deputy Town Clerk from 30 January 2019 and was dismissed during probation with notice taking effect on 23 July 2019. She had disclosed fibromyalgia in a pre-employment health declaration, but told the recruitment agent that the condition was managed with medication, did not affect her work and did not require adjustments. Most alleged acts before 16 July 2019 were prima facie out of time, but the tribunal went on to address the merits of the remaining complaints.

On the disability complaints, the tribunal preferred the respondent's witnesses and accepted that the claimant had difficult working relationships with colleagues and councillors during probation. It held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 EqA or that she was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal also found that she had suppressed information about the effects she later relied on, so the reasonable-adjustments duty was not triggered.

The tribunal rejected the specific allegations of direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. It found that the 5 February 2019 reminder about working from home was a reasonable management response to an admitted breach of contract, that the 'you do talk a lot' comment was made in the context of the claimant dominating the meeting, and that she was not overlooked for Town Clerk or Locum Town Clerk because she was unsuitable for appointment. It also found no unfavourable treatment in the handling of the 6 June absence, the June pay cheque, or the suspended probationary review.

The protected disclosure claims failed because the 28 May 2019 communications with the Elections Office official were concealed from the respondent and therefore could not ground detriment, while the 24 May 2019 text about meeting notices was not, in the tribunal's view, a disclosure made in the public interest. The victimisation claim failed because the claimant had only said she intended to raise a grievance about CC, not an Equality Act complaint. The tribunal held that the dismissal was for unsatisfactory probation, breakdown in working relationships and loss of trust and confidence, and all claims were dismissed with no award.