Ms AB v Equinor UK Ltd — 2020

The claimant worked for the respondent in finance and was agreed to be disabled from 13 January 2020 due to anxiety and depression. The tribunal recorded earlier grievance history concerning XY, including allegations of sexual harassment and later complaints of sex and race discrimination, but the claims adjudicated in this judgment were disability discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing, and unfair dismissal. The respondent moved XY away from the claimant in 2016, and the claimant remained away from work on long-term sick leave from 16 September 2019 until dismissal in November 2020.

On the disability claims, the tribunal held that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the claimant's disability by 6 May 2020, when she forwarded correspondence showing her sertraline dose had been increased. The section 15 claim failed insofar as it relied on the withdrawal of sick pay from 6 February 2020, because that date pre-dated knowledge of disability, and the dismissal itself was found to be justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including managing absenteeism, encouraging return to work, workforce planning and operational efficiency. The tribunal found the claimant had been consulted through a staged incapability process and that the respondent reasonably believed she was not fit to carry out her job at that stage.

For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal held that most of the alleged PCPs were not PCPs at all, but one-off events or omissions in the claimant's own case. It accepted only the requirement to attend long-term absence meetings and the rule reducing sick pay after 26 weeks as PCPs. It found the meeting requirement did not place disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage in the circumstances, because the process was supportive and aimed at exploring return to work, and it held that extending sick pay beyond the contractual entitlement was not a reasonable adjustment, referring to O'Hanlon v Comrs for HM Revenue & Customs. It also found the claimant was supported in the Canada Life PHI process.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts for victimisation purposes, including her earlier sexual harassment complaint, her 2016 grievance and appeal, her 2019 grievances alleging sex and race discrimination, and her April and June 2020 grievance and appeal. It nevertheless rejected the alleged detriments. It found that the respondent's correspondence, grievance outcomes, and absence-management steps were not adverse treatment because of the protected acts, and that the account of the 30 July 2019 discussion with Mr Devor was materially misleading when compared with the transcript of the covert recording. The tribunal also found the 2 August 2019 grievance outcome partly upheld the Azerbaijan comment complaint and recommended that it be addressed with the individual concerned, but that this did not amount to victimisation.