Ms K Kohli v Department for International Trade Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2020

Ms K Kohli joined the Department for International Trade on 10 July 2019 as a Grade 7 in the Global Strategy Directorate. She relied on fibromyalgia, a respiratory condition following a pneumothorax, and sciatica as disabilities. The tribunal found she was not a disabled person for Equality Act purposes: fibromyalgia was diagnosed but there was insufficient evidence of a substantial long-term adverse effect; the pneumothorax did not last 12 months; and the evidence about sciatica did not establish a substantial long-term effect or likely recurrence.

If wrong about disability, the tribunal considered the alleged race and disability discrimination in relation to the claimant's return from surge, the Head of Africa role, and the combined LATAC/Wellness role. It found the LATAC role no longer existed in its previous form because of reorganisation and reduced workload, so she could not return to it as before. It found the Head of Africa role was not available when she was looking for work, had been offered to PG when he was without a role, and was later filled by Mike Morris; the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation and did not find discrimination. Requiring her to take the LATAC role with a focus on the Caribbean plus the Wellness role was also found non-discriminatory because she had been without a role for weeks and there was nothing else available at her grade.

The tribunal found the 3C appraisal grade was Jonathan Hanna's honest assessment of performance for the period December 2019 to March 2020, after the earlier disrupted period had been excluded. It rejected the claimant's case that the grade was influenced by disability or race, noted that a BAME assurance exercise had found no evidence of institutional discrimination in GSD grading, and found the grade had no adverse effect on her job opportunities. The section 15 claim failed because the grade was not based on something arising in consequence of disability, and the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the claimant had set her own objectives, did not show disadvantage from them, was given a chair, the desk was offered but rejected for COVID-related reasons, and the later sit-stand desk request was handled appropriately. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.