In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal held that Miss Chevalier was dismissed in law when she applied for voluntary redundancy, because volunteering for the scheme amounted to agreeing to dismissal by reason of redundancy. It found the dismissal fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996: she was not pressured by Paul Allen, she did not make clear that she was ambivalent about redundancy, and the respondent was not obliged on the facts to offer alternative work before her employment ended on 25 March 2017.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that Miss Chevalier had learning difficulties, including dyslexia and memory problems, but it rejected her heart condition and anxiety/stress as qualifying disabilities on the evidence before it. The heart condition was serious, but the tribunal was not satisfied that its effects remained long-term, particularly given her return to CSA duties in June 2014; relying on Woodrup, it said there was insufficient medical evidence to assess any deduced effects. The anxiety/stress episode was also found not to be long-term.

Most of the disability discrimination allegations failed because the tribunal found either that the events did not happen as alleged, there was no link to the relevant disability, or the respondent lacked the necessary knowledge of disability and disadvantage. It rejected the alleged remark by Ms Bains that she had heard bad things, found Ms Bains did not know of the heart condition until February 2016, and accepted that Mr Hussain had no responsibility for the community engagement manager recruitment. The tribunal also found that attendance and lateness issues were not shown to arise from the claimant’s heart condition or anxiety.

Under reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that a blue-paper roster request was linked to dyslexia and that the step would have been simple, but it held there was no substantial disadvantage on the evidence and in any event the claim was out of time, with no just and equitable extension. The trolley bag, irregular shift, grievance-handling, training, and laptop complaints all failed for lack of knowledge, lack of substantial disadvantage, or because the claimant was already coping effectively in the temporary medical placement. The tribunal said the project-management training would have been useful development, but not a required adjustment.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the 17 October 2016 email complaining about part-time pay arrangements was a protected act because it raised sex discrimination allegations, but the later complaints did not succeed: earlier matters predated the protected act, the cat-woman text was treated as a light-hearted remark, and no request to cancel redundancy was proved. The redundancy payment, breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims also failed because the tribunal found the claimant had received the statutory redundancy payment due at the salary she was then earning and had been paid all wages and allowances due under her contract. The figures discussed in March and June 2017 were treated as backpay discussions, not a separate awarded sum, and no monetary award was made.