In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was employed as a Patient Liaison Administrator from 15 October 2018 to 10 February 2020. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because she did not have two years' qualifying service. It also dismissed all of the Equality Act and wages claims that were before it. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was Turkish and Muslim, and it accepted that stress, anxiety and depression were disabilities, but it did not accept that the claimant's nasal problems satisfied the statutory disability test.

On race and religion, the tribunal found that the claimant's comparators on the patient-facing rota issue were not advanced on a basis that established less favourable treatment because of race. It accepted that Mr Osbourne asked her to work at Park Square West for part of Ramadan, but found she had not told him that this was against her wishes and that the reason was operational need, not religion. It also rejected the complaint about the refusal of the longer leave request in 2020, finding that she was allowed the Eid day itself and that the extra time off was an ordinary annual leave request governed by the leave policy.

The tribunal rejected the sex harassment allegation that Mr Zambon said at the Christmas party that the claimant was dangerous and should be kept away from Armin Sabotic. It also rejected the alternative direct sex discrimination claim based on the same alleged remark, because it did not accept that the words were said. On direct disability discrimination, it found that sick pay for November 2019 was handled in accordance with policy, that the omission to give the claimant a copy of the December 2019 risk assessment was an oversight, that the final written warning followed unauthorised absence on 30 and 31 December 2019, and that dismissal was not because the claimant was disabled.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that the November 2019 nose-operation absence did not arise from disability and that the December 2019 risk assessment issue was not handled because of disability. It also rejected the argument that the final warning was given because of the claimant's nasal condition. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's inability to face patients arose from stress, anxiety and depression, but it held that dismissal was proportionate because Mr Pedro also relied on the final written warning, the breakdown in the working relationship, the claimant's refusal to follow management instructions, and her failure to use the grievance process despite repeated opportunities.

The reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that patient-facing duties placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage when her stress and anxiety were active, but it found that the respondent had already provided extra support and that Mr Zambon was entitled to wait for Occupational Health guidance before changing duties. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant did say in February 2020 that she intended to bring a grievance, but found that Mr Pedro did not know of that protected act and that the dismissal was not because of it. On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant was paid the sick pay due and had no contractual entitlement to overtime payments or TOIL without prior authorisation. All claims were dismissed and no remedy hearing was to take place.