Mr C Milsom (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal accepted that Mr Bailie was disabled from 22 January 2018 and found that the respondents had actual knowledge of the disability from 25 April 2018, when he told Ms Phillips that he had been seeing a therapist and was suffering from depression. It rejected the suggestion that the respondents were on notice earlier, including from the November 2017 staffing complaints, and found that the first protected act occurred on 13 June 2018 when he raised the impact of workload and workplace pressures on his health.

The indirect discrimination claim failed. Applying the approach in Rowan, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant had established PCPs requiring excessive hours, inadequate front office resource, filling gaps left by absences or vacancies, or failing to heed his support requests. It did accept that there was a practice of managers assisting with the rollout of regulatory and compliance work, but found no evidence that this placed disabled employees, or Mr Bailie in particular, at a particular disadvantage. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed on the same basis: the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage, and in any event concluded that the proposed adjustments were not required, including extra staff, reduced hours, removal of responsibilities, keeping the department unchanged, and allowing legal representation at a workplace mediation.

The harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed. Applying Dhaliwal, the tribunal held that the alleged comments and communications, including the alleged stress comment, the 'in some capacity' remark, the team announcements, the voicemail, and the access/email allegations, did not amount to harassment or detriment on the evidence. It accepted that the 13 June 2018 discussion, the 12 September 2018 grievance, and the October grievance interviews were protected acts, but found no adverse treatment caused by those acts. The grievance itself was investigated and dismissed, but the tribunal found that this did not amount to victimisation.

The claimant succeeded on direct discrimination under section 13 and discrimination arising from disability under section 15 in relation to the early August 2018 restructure. The tribunal found that the 3 August email announced a permanent change, not a temporary caretaker arrangement, that Julia Williams was given sole overall responsibility and Co-Head status without consultation on that aspect, and that the claimant's disability-related absences materially influenced the decision. It rejected the explanation that the restructure was justified by regulatory need or leadership requirements, and held that the section 15 justification defence failed. No remedy was quantified in this judgment, and the tribunal directed the parties to propose directions for a separate remedy hearing.