Represented herself For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Muir was employed as a Revenue Control Officer at London Blackfriars and the respondent accepted that she was disabled by PTSD and knew of that disability. After the passenger assaults and the occupational health reports, the tribunal found that the requirement to work in direct contact with passengers placed her at a substantial disadvantage. It upheld the complaint that inviting her to a further capability meeting on 29 July 2020 was discrimination arising from disability, although the initial capability meeting on 13 July 2020 was found proportionate.

The tribunal held that reasonable adjustments required redeployment away from direct public contact, including to administrative work, and specifically identified the Trainee Train Planner, HR Administrator, Health, Clinical and Administrative Support, and Admin Support, Fleet posts as roles into which she should have been placed. It found that the respondent's approach was too passive because it left her to compete through ordinary recruitment and online testing rather than proactively matching her to suitable work. The disability-related claims were treated as a continuing discriminatory state of affairs and were held to be in time; alternatively, it would have been just and equitable to extend time.

The direct race discrimination and race harassment claims, based on the handling of the July 2019, September 2019, December 2019, and January 2020 incidents, were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Hughes's comment about taking photographs was tactless, but found no basis for inferring that it was because Ms Muir was black. It also found that the December 2019 incident was investigated and that the failure to call 999 or stop the train after the January 2020 incident was not shown to be race-related.

The protected disclosure made on 14 October 2020 was accepted, but the whistleblowing claim failed because later unsuccessful applications were attributed to online tests and shortlisting decisions, not the disclosure. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal did not find that the delay on sick pay, the outcome of the sexual-harassment grievance, the level of help with internal applications, or access to occupational health reports was because of the protected acts. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn, and the unlawful deduction claim failed overall apart from an admitted computer-error underpayment for the four weeks ending 19 February 2022, which the respondent agreed to repay on a net basis. Liability was determined only and compensation was left to be agreed or listed for a further hearing.