Mr T Walker, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal accepted that from October 2017 the claimant's arthralgia arthritis, migraines, depression and/or anxiety amounted to disabilities. The hearing was listed for liability only, and the remedy hearing was adjourned after the oral liability decision.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was capability, not the grievance or the first Employment Tribunal claim. It nevertheless found the dismissal and the appeal decision unfair because the respondent did not sufficiently take account of the claimant's history, the earlier failings in absence management, the unresolved reasonable adjustments, or the claimant's position that she could return to work within a reasonable timescale.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal upheld the section 15 claims in relation to the First Written Attendance Warning on 19 October 2017 and the dismissal on 19 June 2018. It found that both acts arose from disability-related absence and were not justified, even though the respondent relied on the legitimate aim of running an effective attendance-management system. It also upheld reasonable adjustment claims for increasing attendance-management trigger points, moving the claimant to a quieter work area with reduced sensory stimulus and avoiding bright lights, and providing an adapted keyboard and screen protector. Other adjustment arguments failed, including claims about longer micro-breaks, separate recording of absence, taxi fares, and a workstation assessment.

The tribunal dismissed victimisation because the grievance and first ET claim were protected acts but were not the reason for dismissal. It also dismissed the wages and breach of contract claims about deductions from the Civil Service Compensation Scheme payment, because the claimant could not prove the figures or establish a contractual basis for a further sum, although the entitlement to the scheme payment itself was conceded.