Ms A Alexis v Westminster Drug Project — 2022

The claimant, Ms A Alexis, worked for Westminster Drug Project after a TUPE transfer in April 2015 and had notified the respondent of dyslexia in August 2018. A DAC assessment in March 2019 confirmed dyslexia and recommended, among other things, 25% extra time for examinations, interviews and assessments. In autumn 2020 the Brent service was restructured, the claimant and two colleagues applied for two new posts, and the respondent ran competency-based interviews as part of the redundancy selection exercise.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal accepted that the respondent knew the claimant was disabled and that asking interview questions in a redundancy selection exercise was a PCP that placed her at a substantial disadvantage. It held that sending the interview questions 15 minutes before the interviews, allowing notes to be taken and questions to be repeated or reframed, was a reasonable adjustment in light of the DAC report and the respondent's previous experience. The tribunal also found that the respondent initially failed to tell the claimant in advance that this adjustment would be made, but that defect was corrected in the grievance outcome on 16 December 2020, when the respondent decided to re-interview her. Complaints about failures to make reasonable adjustments before that date were out of time, and the tribunal declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis.

The tribunal rejected the section 15 Equality Act claim. It found that the claimant was dismissed because the respondent considered that her response to the grievance appeal, including repeated challenges to the process and the options offered, showed an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence and that the relationship had become unsustainable. The dismissal was held to be for some other substantial reason and fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal also rejected victimisation, finding that the claimant was not dismissed because she had raised the 13 October 2020 grievance, and rejected the redundancy pay claim because she was not dismissed by reason of redundancy.

The harassment complaint failed. The tribunal found that the alleged remark at the appeal hearing, "Do you need your hand held?", was not made. It accepted that Mr Pink had used the phrases "some semantics at play" and "these are not pick and mix" at the 18 February 2021 meeting, but held that those comments were not related to disability and did not have the required purpose or effect under s.26 Equality Act 2010.