In person v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal dismissed all complaints. It first found that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the claimant was disabled by anxiety and depression during the relevant period. The claimant's sickness record showed minor illnesses and accidents, and occupational health reports recorded an underlying condition, difficulty concentrating, and work-related stress, but the tribunal held that these matters did not put the employer on enquiry that she had a disability.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected most of the alleged breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found no serious deficiency in local induction, no disadvantage from the manager's children working as bank staff, no failure to support the claimant after her mother's death, genuine attempts to help with workload, and no breach in relation to training, annual leave, confidentiality, micromanagement, or the laptop issue. The tribunal did find that the original recommendation for a stress risk assessment, and the later recommendation to revisit it, were not acted on, but it held those breaches were waived when the claimant took part in the April 2020 assessment and, in any event, they were not part of her stated reasons for resigning.

The tribunal held that there was no constructive dismissal because the claimant's resignation letter said she could no longer work with Ms Lecointe, had lost faith in the appeal process, and did not think working from home two days a week would be enough to reduce her stress. It also found that earlier matters could not realistically have been reasons for the resignation because they were too remote in time or, in the case of the later occupational health issues, had been overtaken by the claimant's participation in the April 2020 risk assessment.

The harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 failed. The tribunal found that some comments, including the "away with the fairies" remark and the "doesn't have a clue" / "useless" comments, had the effect of harassment when the claimant later saw or heard about them, but it found they were related to performance concerns rather than disability. Other matters, including performance monitoring, sickness monitoring, the "step back" message, the "definitely for discussion tomorrow" email, the improvement notice, and the use of Polish in the claimant's presence, were found not to be related to disability and not to have the prohibited effect.

The remaining Equality Act claims also failed. The section 15 claim failed because the management report for the flexible working appeal was part of the appeal process and was not unfavourable treatment; the tribunal also found that the matters relied on as arising from disability did not in fact arise from disability, and that the report pursued the legitimate aim of consistent application of the appeal process. The indirect discrimination claim failed because there was no evidence that the sickness absence policy or Bradford formula put people with anxiety and depression at a particular disadvantage, and the tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aims and proportionality case. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent lacked constructive knowledge of disability and, in any event, the claimant had not shown the relevant PCPs created a substantial disadvantage. The flexible working detriment claim failed because the events relied on were ordinary management steps or genuine attempts to facilitate the Zoom appeal, and the notice pay claim failed because the claimant left during her notice period to start another job.