did not attend For the v Mr Nigel Henry, consultant — 2024

The claimant presented the ET1 on 5 January 2024 alleging wrongful dismissal and possible disability and race discrimination. At a case management hearing on 8 April 2024, her wrongful dismissal allegation was withdrawn and dismissed, and EJ Davidson ordered further information because the discrimination complaints were not clearly identified. The final tribunal held that the ET1 and later further information still did not set out any sufficiently clear pleaded claims, and no amendment was made.

The respondent's evidence was that the claimant worked as an executive assistant on a three-month probationary contract requiring independent, accurate work. The tribunal accepted that there had been performance concerns before 12 September 2023, including missed deadlines, mistakes in travel arrangements and late or changed meetings. At the meeting on 12 September 2023 the claimant accepted errors and said she had anxiety, depression and a little dyslexia; after a short adjournment, the respondent dismissed her with immediate effect for too many mistakes and lack of attention to detail.

The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety, but there was insufficient evidence to establish dyslexia as an impairment with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. It held that the respondent had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the disability until the 12 September 2023 meeting. The discrimination arising from disability complaint failed because the claimant did not show facts from which the tribunal could link the mistakes to her disability rather than simple inattention, and in any event dismissal was a proportionate response to the respondent's legitimate aim of efficient administration.

The reasonable-adjustments complaint also failed. The tribunal found no clear PCP in the original claim, no substantial disadvantage on the evidence, and no basis for concluding that extra time, shadowing or a buddy would have been a reasonable or effective adjustment. The race discrimination claim failed because the claimant identified no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, and the tribunal said that to the extent the case was advanced as direct disability discrimination it failed for the same reason on comparator analysis.

The tribunal also rejected the harassment complaint. It found the 12 September 2023 meeting was a legitimate discussion of performance concerns, that there was no evidence of an intention to harass, and that it was reasonable and appropriate for the respondent to discuss the disability-related explanations raised by the claimant. No monetary award was made because the claims were dismissed or withdrawn.