Ms C Meenan, counsel For the v Respondent — 2017

The claimant was employed from 31 October 2016 as E-Learning Training Manager on an 18-month fixed-term contract. The tribunal found that she needed a high level of support from early on, that there were recurring difficulties in her relationships with colleagues, and that her work on the e-learning deliverables did not progress to the standard required. After occupational health involvement, the respondent later learned that she had reactive depression and anxiety and, from 4 July 2017, Asperger's syndrome. Her employment was dismissed on 25 September 2017 after the probationary process and a series of PIP reviews.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that several PCPs existed, including the requirement to meet the respondent's behavioural values, the expectation that someone in the claimant's band would know what needed to be done, fixed times for tasks in a PIP, and the introduction of a wider range of objectives in performance management. It found that the behavioural PCP and the PIP-related PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of Asperger's, and that the fixed-time PIP PCP also increased anxiety/depression. However, it held that the respondent took reasonable steps, including providing support, agreeing adjustments, extending time for deliverables, appointing a mentor, giving written feedback, and seeking occupational health input. The tribunal also found that some alleged PCPs were not established, including allowing line managers to change deliverables and not having workplace evaluations.

Under s.15 EqA 2010, the tribunal found that putting the claimant on a performance management process and dismissing her were unfavourable treatment because of matters arising in consequence of Asperger's, namely interpersonal, teamwork, and organisational difficulties. It accepted the respondent's stated legitimate aims of complying with British Council values, maintaining a safe workplace, and delivering the contracted work, and concluded that the PIP and dismissal were proportionate. The direct discrimination allegation failed because the tribunal did not find that the alleged remark about not hiring her if Asperger's had been known was made.

The disability-related harassment allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found that the matters relied on were either not made out on the facts, or amounted to reasonable management and performance review rather than unwanted conduct with the requisite purpose or effect. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the 22 March 2017 grievance, the 14 July 2017 grievance, and the appeal against dismissal were protected acts, but it found that the respondent properly considered alternative roles in October 2017 and did not treat the claimant detrimentally because of those acts. The indirect discrimination claim was not proceeded with and was formally dismissed.