In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, a corporate partnerships employee in the Faculty of Medicine, was accepted to be disabled by anxiety, depression and asthma. The tribunal found that the respondent knew of those conditions early in her employment and, after occupational health input in February 2018, agreed adjustments including flexible desk arrangements, working from home every other Tuesday, hot-desking on Level 3, ventilation, and regular breaks. It found those arrangements were implemented and remained in place, and that the workplace itself was air-conditioned and ventilated, though temperature and allergen exposure could vary.

The tribunal rejected the direct discrimination allegations around Dr Hepworth sharing information with Dr Wilson in October 2018, Dr Wilson's role in the January 2019 interview process, the non-appointment decision, and Dr Wilson's grievance response. It found Dr Hepworth acted to help resolve the claimant's concerns, not because of disability, and that the interview panel selected another candidate because she was better. Dr Wilson's grievance response was treated as a recitation of what the claimant had told her, not a negative comment made because of disability. The tribunal also found that the claimant's evidence was often unreliable where it conflicted with the respondent's witnesses and contemporaneous documents.

The tribunal dismissed the section 15, reasonable adjustments, harassment, and victimisation heads. It held that the alleged workplace practices and management communications were either ordinary management actions, not shown to arise from disability in the pleaded way, or not capable of amounting to harassment or detriment. On reasonable adjustments, it found that the main advantages sought by the claimant had already been implemented or were not reasonable or necessary on the facts found. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that some alleged protected acts were proved, including the first grievance, the first claim, and certain February and March 2019 communications about working from home and short-notice meetings, but it held that the alleged detriments were not shown to be because of those protected acts.

The grievance process and the appeal were also rejected as bases for liability. The tribunal found that Dr McDermott's handling of the first grievance and Ms Cox's handling of the appeal were appropriate and aimed at understanding the complaints and identifying possible solutions. Questions asked by Ms Cox about whether the claimant's conditions affected her perceptions were held to be part of that exercise and not discriminatory or harassing. The tribunal also rejected complaints about the room booking, the proposed postponement of the appeal hearing, the handling of subject access requests, and the various follow-up emails as detriments or harassment.

On the whistleblowing and dismissal issues, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved any protected disclosure in the first grievance or the first claim, and it said she had effectively not advanced the whistleblowing case at hearing. The first three protected disclosure detriment allegations were struck out as out of time; the only in-time whistleblowing detriment allegation, concerning the 25 July 2019 appeal meeting, failed on the merits. The constructive dismissal claim also failed because there was no repudiatory breach and no constructive dismissal, and the tribunal added that, even if there had been liability, it considered the claimant would likely have left by 31 December 2019 at the latest. No remedy was awarded.