In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant brought unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims arising out of the respondent's disciplinary process after the October 2018 financial services conference. The tribunal considered limited medical evidence and found that the pleaded condition of generalised anxiety disorder was not proved as a disability at the relevant times. It found that the claimant's panic attacks and anxiety did not, in the round, have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities for the required long-term period, and that the later episode in December 2018 was substantial while it lasted but was not shown to be long term. The tribunal therefore rejected the disability case at the threshold, although it noted that if panic attacks alone had amounted to a disability, Ms Glover would likely have known about them from the January 2016 incident and email.

The s.15 claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had a panic attack during the 30 October 2018 investigation interview or that his answers were affected by one. It found that any unfavourable treatment consisted of relying on the claimant's interview answers and drawing adverse inferences from inconsistencies, but that this was not treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed: as pleaded, the alleged PCPs were treated as one-off decisions rather than general practices, and even if reframed as a requirement to attend the investigation and disciplinary process in a timely way, the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage and no basis on which the respondent should have postponed the process. The direct discrimination claim failed because, even assuming Mr David Bevan was an apt comparator for some purposes, there was no evidence that the claimant's mental health condition explained the different treatment.

The harassment claim failed. On the complaint about Ms Glover's April 2018 remark, the tribunal preferred her evidence that the discussion was about Tibetan Buddhism and mental health concepts rather than a statement that mental health issues only existed in the West. It accepted that the claimant took offence, and that the comment related to disability insofar as it concerned depression, but held that it was not reasonable for the remarks to have the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. The tribunal also rejected the contention that the investigation, disciplinary hearing, outcome meeting and appeal were harassment related to disability, finding that the process was aimed at dealing with misconduct allegations and that any mental-health-related steps taken, including postponement and offers of breaks, were benign and intended to assist the claimant.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct on 5 October 2018. It held that Ms Young's investigation, Mr Quayum's disciplinary decision and Mr Erskine's appeal decision were all within the range of reasonable responses, based on multiple witness accounts that broadly corroborated one another and on the claimant's changing accounts. The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had engaged in inappropriate behaviour, had conducted a reasonable investigation, and had reasonable grounds for dismissal. It also held that the procedure was fair, that there was no predetermination, no need to suspend the claimant, and no unfairness in not interviewing Ms J, Ms Walker or Mr Turnbull at the appeal stage. The claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.