In person but accompanied by her friend Ms J Mitchell For the v Respondent — 2020

The respondent conceded that the claimant's depression and IBS were disabilities. The tribunal also held that the claimant's psoriasis was a disability at the material time in 2015, because it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities, including flare-ups, pain, medication, and restrictions on footwear and clothing. The claimant's long absence history, attendance reviews, and the respondent's operational concerns about weekend staffing were central to the case.

The direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 EQA failed. The tribunal found that Mr Jameel's repeated questions about the claimant's attendance, psoriasis, medication, relocation, and the possibility of reducing her working week were not less favourable treatment because of disability. It held that the questions were generally driven by concern about overall absence levels and the non-standard Friday to Sunday arrangement, and that no pressure was applied to agree to a two-day week. The allegation connected with the anti-depressant drugs trial was held to be out of time and, in any event, not direct discrimination.

The claim under s.15 EQA also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's sickness absence, and the dismissal itself, arose at least in part from disability-related absence, but held that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of effectively managing attendance and reducing disruption to train services. It relied on the claimant's very substantial and intermittent absences over more than ten years, the impact of absence on limited weekend capacity, the opportunities given to improve attendance, and the respondent's conclusion that further absence was likely. The tribunal considered the claimant's final absence in 2019 to be the final straw in the context of her overall record.

The Part-time Workers Regulations claim failed because the claimant was found to be in a comparable role to full-time train operators, but the attendance policy was not applied to her because she was part-time and the requests to move to a two-day week were not imposed detriments. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the percentage-based attendance system disadvantaged her as a part-time worker, saying the comparison had to be made pro rata. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent had a genuine capability or SOSR reason, carried out a reasonable investigation, considered alternatives, and acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed.