Ms I Egan (Counsel) v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal accepted that Ms Muigua was disabled by reason of nystagmus and that the dispute concerned events at Covent Garden after her transfer from Manchester in September 2019. It found that her previous iPad with accessibility software had not been sent on with her, that a replacement was later approved, and that Access to Work and Occupational Health became involved. The tribunal also accepted Mr Kennedy's evidence about the accessibility features of Apple devices, including that contrast could be adjusted, that SF font achieved the same effect as Arial, and that it was not shown that third-party software would do a better job on the three items the claimant identified as contrast, text size, and font type.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal dismissed the complaint. It found no substantial disadvantage in relation to contrast or font type, and held that the Respondent was not required to provide software achieving an absolute black-on-white contrast or software with Arial available. It accepted that text size posed a disadvantage on iPads because Hover Text was not available on those devices, but concluded it would not be reasonable to require the Respondent to provide software better than text-only zoom. The tribunal also found no failure in relation to Safari Reader, because there was no failure to enable it and nothing further that the Respondent was reasonably required to do. The complaint about sending materials in advance during lockdown did not establish a relevant PCP or a substantial disadvantage, and the Occupational Health recommendations were received too late for the tribunal to make findings about them.

The section 15 complaint was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the attempt to frame the failure to provide adjustments itself as unfavourable treatment was not a viable analysis, and in any event the reasonable adjustments findings meant there was no such unfavourable treatment. As to the temporary removal of some tasks, the tribunal found that this was a short-term solution intended to assist the claimant while a longer-term solution was sought. It held that this was not unfavourable treatment and, in any event, it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of assisting her to do her job.

The harassment claim under section 26 was dismissed in relation to each of the three incidents relied on. The tribunal found that Mr Kennedy's comments on 17 February 2020 were unwanted and related to nystagmus, and that the claimant was genuinely offended, but it concluded that the comments were not made with the purpose of harassing her and that it was not reasonable for them to have had that effect. It found that the complaint about the 3 August 2020 grievance appeal meeting did not establish harassment on the facts, because Ms Perkins had not refused to send the notes and her question was a reasonable response to the claimant's earlier comments. The tribunal similarly found that Ms Otton's remarks on 12 January 2021 were not made in an argumentative way and did not have the purpose or effect of harassing the claimant. Because the claims failed on the merits, the tribunal did not need to decide the timeliness issue for the harassment complaint.