Mrs Alison Ritchie First v Marks & Spencer plc Second Respondent: Michael Mullen Third Respondent: Kirsty Rutherford Fourth Respondent: Cemaliye Towns — 2022

Mrs Alison Ritchie worked for Marks & Spencer as a customer assistant at the Kenton Bar store. She accepted that she had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal also recorded that the respondent accepted her depression and menopausal symptoms were disabilities. The case concerned 26 incidents between October 2018 and July 2020, largely arising from the respondent's proposal to introduce more flexible working patterns and from subsequent absence management, shift allocation, grievance handling and related correspondence.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and found that the claimant's presentation of the case had been substantially influenced by her husband. It found that the claimant unreasonably refused to provide medical evidence or attend occupational health assessments, and accepted the respondent's explanation that those requests were made to assess what adjustments might be needed. On the individual allegations, the tribunal found no requirement had been imposed on the claimant to work to a flexible shift pattern before she had been asked to do so, and that the respondent's letters, calls and management instructions were reasonable in context and did not amount to harassment, victimisation, or discrimination arising from disability.

The tribunal also rejected the reasonable adjustments complaints. It found that the claimant had not identified a PCP that put her at a substantial disadvantage in the way required by sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, and that where the respondent became aware on 5 August 2019 that she should not work in the bread and cake department because of menopausal symptoms, it stopped requiring her to do so. The tribunal concluded that all allegations of unlawful disability discrimination against all four respondents were not well-founded and were dismissed.

On wages, the tribunal found that company sick pay was discretionary and depended on the claimant maintaining contact with management during absence. It found that the claimant had not done so, so the withdrawal of sick pay was not an unlawful deduction. It also found that the £647.89 cash advance was a repayable loan made to relieve financial hardship, and that the claimant had not established any entitlement to have that sum written off.