Vanessa Squire v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Vanessa Squire was employed by University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a Senior Finance Manager (Projects) in the Specialist Hospitals Board. The respondent accepted that she was disabled by cancer and endometriosis from 2015, by depression and anxiety from 2017, and by PTSD from January 2020. The tribunal considered claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and disability harassment, but it dismissed all of them.

The tribunal found that, when Mr Turner took over the SHB finance team in 2016, he had questions about how the newly created projects role fitted within the team. It accepted that he held meetings with the claimant and that there was tension about the role, but it did not accept that he told her there was no role for her, that she was not good at reporting or basic accounting, that she was being performance managed, that she should resign, or that redundancy was being considered. It found that the SHB role remained in the structure and was budgeted, and that the claimant was seconded to Mariyana Zaharieva's team in February 2017.

On the claimant's complaints about occupational health, vacancies and work allocation, the tribunal rejected the contention that the respondent had treated her unfavourably because of disability or because of something arising from disability. It found that Mr Turner’s January 2017 occupational health referral was a one-off decision, not a PCP, and that there was no evidence the claimant was more likely than others to receive an inaccurate report. It also found that the claimant knew about the 2018 vacancies she relied on and could have applied for them, and that the allegations about Ms Zaharieva misleading her about the secondment were not proved on the evidence.

The tribunal accepted that from October 2019 the claimant was on a phased return and that the respondent said she could use annual leave to extend that arrangement. It found that this was not the kind of group disadvantage required for indirect discrimination, and that in any event the respondent's sick pay policy was a proportionate and legitimate arrangement. The reasonable adjustments claim failed for the same reason: the claimant was effectively seeking extra paid sick leave, which the tribunal did not regard as a reasonable adjustment on the facts. Later complaints about limited work, lack of structure, the handling of the second grievance, redeployment discussions, and occupational health referrals between 2020 and 2022 were also rejected; the tribunal found the difficulties were driven by the pandemic, the grievance process, and the practical problems in managing the claimant's return to work, not by victimisation or disability-related harassment.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the case in full and made no monetary award.