Miss S Asghar v Talentyard Limited — 2018

Miss Asghar applied through Talentyard for a Patient Care Coordinator role on or about 21 March 2018. By the hearing the respondent had accepted that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes, with Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar Affective Disorder. The tribunal's central factual dispute was whether Ms Hughes knew of the disability, or of disability-related sickness/therapy needs, during the relevant contacts in March and April 2018.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's account that she had told Ms Hughes on 21 March 2018 that she was bipolar, had been in therapy, or had taken time off because of ill health. It found that Ms Hughes did not have knowledge of the disability at the time of the alleged failures to arrange an interview or send the CV, and that those steps were not taken because the client was already in final interviews and had asked for no further CVs to be sent. Those two alleged detriments therefore failed on knowledge and, in any event, on causation.

By 5 April 2018 the claimant had emailed complaining of illness, treatment and unequal treatment, but the tribunal found that this still did not communicate the disability relied on in the claim, and that mention of an illness did not of itself put the respondent on notice of disability. The email saying she was not a suitable match and that the client wanted someone who would eventually work full-time was found not to be because of the disability-related matters pleaded; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant was considered unsuitable for other reasons, including telephone manner, diplomacy and the client's preference for private medical experience. In any event, the tribunal held that the respondent's aim of fulfilling its client's specific requirements was legitimate and that its treatment was proportionate.

The final alleged detriment, the 25 April 2018 email stating that the claimant was not suitable for the PCCR without further explanation, also failed. The tribunal found that the respondent still did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the relevant disability, and that the brief email was sent to close the matter down rather than because of disability-related absence or therapy requirements. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claims were not well founded and dismissed them. No remedy hearing was required and no award was made.