Mr N Clarke (counsel) For the v Mr A Williams (Solicitor Advocate) — 2020

Ms Barker worked for the respondent dental practice group from 26 August 2014 until she resigned on 22 August 2018, with employment ending on 21 September 2018. The tribunal accepted that she had a disability for Equality Act purposes and that her difficulties could affect mornings and travel, especially during depressive episodes. After an occupational health report in June 2018, the respondent agreed a permanent 9am start and proposed a trial of working from home twice a month, with cover arrangements and review. The tribunal found those steps were reasonable and held that weekly homeworking was not a further reasonable adjustment on the facts of this small three-site business, where the Practice Manager’s face-to-face presence and cover arrangements were important.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal separated three alleged detriments. It held that refusing weekly homeworking and referring to V’s position on appeal were decisions taken because of business needs, not because of something arising in consequence of disability. It did find that the letter warning that further attendance failures could lead to a written warning was unfavourable treatment connected to the claimant’s disability-related absence and lateness, but it held that this was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of securing reasonable attendance and punctuality. The tribunal relied in particular on the existing adjustments, the prior informal warning, the limited level of absence permitted, and the respondent’s operational need for the Practice Manager to be available during core hours.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had done a protected act in July 2018 by seeking reasonable adjustments, but the warning, medical capability process and temporary restriction on Google Drive access were not imposed because of that protected act. The tribunal held that the capability process was a proper response to the situation and that the claimant had no reason to access the respondent’s systems during sick leave in her notice period. The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found that the respondent’s conduct in dealing with adjustments and attendance was not a repudiatory breach and was not calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence, or alternatively had reasonable and proper cause. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was withdrawn. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims.