Miss R Duggal v HBOS plc — 2025

The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by light sensitivity, frozen shoulder and dry eye condition. The tribunal also found, by a narrow margin, that dust mite allergy was a disability, but found that left hip or torso pain and tinnitus were not disabilities at the material time.

The reasonable adjustments complaints concerned the desk setup, monitor, air ventilation and related return-to-work issues. The tribunal found that the desk security box policy and some physical features were established, but it was not satisfied that the claimant was placed at the alleged substantial disadvantage by the desk or ventilation arrangements. It found the monitor adjustment had been provided, the ventilation change sought was not reasonable, and the timing complaints did not separately succeed.

The harassment and alternative direct disability discrimination allegations, including weekly check-ins, delays, redeployment to the Fraud and Disputes team, comments about competence, and failure to review earlier decisions, were dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent had tried over a lengthy period to address reported barriers, that some delays had multiple causes including the pandemic, supply issues and coordination needs, and that the pleaded conduct did not meet the harassment or direct discrimination tests.

The section 15 claim and unfair dismissal claim both arose from the dismissal after the attempted branch return and homeworking Fraud role did not succeed. The tribunal found the section 15 claim failed because the pleaded reason arising from disability was not made out, and in the alternative dismissal was justified by legitimate aims. For unfair dismissal, it found the principal reason was some other substantial reason, not capability, and that dismissal and the appeal process were within the range of reasonable responses.