Ms N Feltham v Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London — 2022

The tribunal heard claims arising from the claimant's employment from 25 September 2017 to 31 July 2019. It found that the respondent conceded disability by reason of anxiety from February 2018 onwards, but the claimant was not disabled on 30 October 2017 because her symptoms had not yet manifested. On that basis, the reasonable adjustment claim about the 30 October 2017 meeting failed.

The tribunal also rejected the redeployment reasonable adjustment claim. It found that occupational health did not recommend redeployment as a medical necessity; at most, it suggested that an internal transfer might help because of the claimant's perceptions about work relationships. The tribunal held that the identified practices did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage when compared with non-disabled comparators in the same circumstances and, in any event, that redeployment was not a reasonable step to require where it was not medically recommended.

The claimant succeeded on the section 15 Equality Act claim concerning the withdrawal of the Housing Customer Services Officer offer. The tribunal found that the offer was withdrawn because of her sickness absence record, the bulk of which was anxiety-related, so the treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability. The respondent relied on the need for an efficient and cost-effective public service and regular attendance, but the tribunal found that it had produced no evidence from the decision-maker or HR support and had not shown that the withdrawal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The claimant also succeeded on the reasonable adjustment claim about the meeting on 3 April 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent had a practice of not allowing accompaniment to informal meetings, that the claimant's anxiety made her more vulnerable to distress and panic in such a setting, and that it would have been reasonable to offer accompaniment or at least warn her what the meeting concerned. The fact that she did not ask to be accompanied did not prevent liability because she had not been told the purpose of the meeting and the discussion deteriorated quickly.

The harassment claim failed. The tribunal accepted that Wayne Garrigan shouted at the claimant and that his conduct had the effect of being intimidating, hostile and degrading, but it found that the conduct was not related to disability. The constructive discriminatory dismissal claim also failed. Although the tribunal said the successful discrimination findings would ordinarily amount to a fundamental breach, it found that the claimant resigned on 16 July 2019 to avoid the disciplinary hearing scheduled for 17 July 2019, and that she had affirmed the contract by returning to work on 20 May 2019 and not making an open complaint that reserved her position. The written judgment records no monetary award.