Ms. Lorna Morris v Women’s Pioneer Housing Ltd. Hearing: Final Hearing — 2023

Ms Lorna Morris was disabled by reason of multiple sclerosis, which WPH accepted. After Ms Page told her on 16 January 2023 that she would be subject to formal performance management, the claimant became unwell and was absent from work from 17 January 2023. On 19 January 2023 Ms Page invited her to a Stage 1 sickness absence meeting. The tribunal held that the direct disability discrimination claim failed because Ms Page would not have treated a hypothetical non-disabled comparator more favourably, and because the invitation was not shown to be because of disability. The tribunal accepted that Ms Page was acting in good faith in trying to balance performance management with support.

The s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the decision to invite the claimant to the Stage 1 meeting was unfavourable treatment because it was the first formal stage of WPH's sickness absence process and could potentially lead to dismissal. The sickness absence from 17-19 January 2023 arose in consequence of the claimant's disability, because the tribunal accepted that stress from the performance management discussion triggered a relapse of MS symptoms. WPH relied on legitimate aims of managing absence, supporting disabled staff, and ensuring consistent treatment, but the tribunal found that using a formal Stage 1 meeting on 24 January 2023 was not proportionate because the same matters could have been discussed at an informal meeting and that would have caused less stress.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed. As to the initial 24 January 2023 meeting, the tribunal found that the short notice was a one-off event rather than a PCP, and in any event there was no substantial disadvantage shown. As to the meetings on 9 March and 23 March 2023, the tribunal found that the policy preventing companions at informal work meetings was a PCP, but the claimant was not shown to suffer a substantial disadvantage because those meetings were cancelled when she said she would not attend, and she was later allowed to bring her daughter to the 6 April 2023 meeting. The tribunal also found that WPH did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of any relevant substantial disadvantage at the earlier stages.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal did not find a causal connection between the protected acts and the alleged detriments. It accepted that the claimant had made protected acts on 23 January, 2 February, 13 February, 21 February and 13 April 2023, but found that WPH's refusal to investigate the grievance was based on its grievance policy, the companion issue reflected normal policy for informal meetings, and the delay in dealing with the appeal was an oversight rather than retaliatory treatment. The tribunal therefore dismissed direct discrimination, reasonable adjustments and victimisation, but upheld the s.15 claim and directed the parties to notify the tribunal by 4pm on 20 September 2024 whether remedy had been agreed or a remedy hearing was required.