In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Edwards brought disability discrimination claims based on diabetes. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of her disability, but found that the earlier working pattern she described as her reasonable adjustment was not shown to have been medically recommended for diabetes. The only medical material located was a 15 June 2011 GP letter about working hours and a 12 March 2013 occupational health report recommending regular stretches from the desk and access to the toilet, not the later home/office pattern.

On the direct discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case across allegations (a) to (j). It found Mr Bell did not invite her back to the F2F team on 6 July 2020 because he and occupational health had recorded that she could manage only about three hours on the computer, she had expressed concerns about Covid, and Council guidance was to work from home where possible. The tribunal also found that the use of the union representative, the comment that she could appear unapproachable, the move from Housing to Citizenship, and the later sickness-review comments were not because of diabetes; several of the later allegations were found not to have been said, or to have been genuine mistakes in terminology or record keeping.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown the respondent applied the PCPs she relied on. The one-day-per-week face-to-face arrangement was found to be something she wanted, not a requirement imposed by the respondent, and she was only required to work in Citizenship, with some Housing/F2F work accommodated at her request. As to the auxiliary aids, the tribunal found the monitor and mouse were recommended in relation to her head injury after the February 2020 accident, that the existing mouse was broken, and that both items were provided by 22/23 July 2020. Because all claims failed, the judgment was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.