Amanda Hart (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for the respondent from 19 September 2016 to 27 June 2021 as a Clinical Pathway Administrator. The tribunal found that she developed a mental impairment of stress and anxiety from 21 April 2020, and that this amounted to a disability from October 2020 onwards. From that point the respondent had the relevant knowledge from the claimant's GP fit notes, occupational health reports and direct dealings with her.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to manage absence in principle, but that it failed to make reasonable adjustments in three respects. First, it failed to deal properly with the claimant's grievance about Ms Quaglia: Mr Matthews did not invite her to a meeting, carried out no investigation, applied a three-month time limit from the wrong policy, and gave no appeal. Second, the respondent should have redeployed her in or around December 2020, or at least before the Stage 3 meeting on 15 June 2021, but did not do so. Third, once her pay fell to half pay in March 2021, the tribunal found it would have been a reasonable adjustment to continue half pay because the earlier failures had prolonged her absence.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that in-house psychology was a reasonable adjustment, finding that it had not been recommended in the way alleged and that, in any event, the respondent had prioritised its psychology resource during the pandemic. It also found that the claimant was put at a substantial disadvantage by the attendance-management process because the formal stages and threat of dismissal bit harder on her as a disabled employee who was not able to return to work.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the cumulative effect of the grievance handling failures, the refusal to redeploy at the relevant time, and the position maintained at the Stage 3 meeting amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The Stage 3 meeting was the final straw, and the claimant resigned in response. The tribunal assessed a 95% chance that she would have remained employed if the respondent had acted lawfully, found a 5% Polkey reduction, and left the ACAS uplift percentage for the remedy hearing. No monetary award was determined in this liability judgment.