Mr Wright (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant, whom the respondent accepted was disabled by multiple conditions, brought disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment complaints about adjustments, grievances, appraisal decisions, secondments and later return-to-work arrangements between 2017 and 2023. The tribunal found the respondent knew of the disabilities, but it dismissed every complaint and made no award.

For the earliest 2017 complaints, the tribunal found there had been no oral request in spring 2017 for shortened office hours that had been refused, and that the laptop and chair/desk issues were addressed after occupational health and workstation assessments. It held the laptop arrangement was provided after a short delay and that the chair/desk claims were either answered within a reasonable period or were brought out of time.

At Windsor House and Horse Guards Road, the tribunal found the claimant could work from home or from lower floors while evacuation plans were arranged, and that the respondent's approach to toilets, handrails and rest spaces was reasonable in the circumstances. It found no evidence that non-disabled staff regularly used the disabled toilets, that radar locks would have been a reasonable or effective solution, or that the claimant was deprived of suitable rest space because the respondent kept offering alternatives. The same reasoning was applied to Buckingham Palace Road and to the home chair claim, where the delays were said to have been caused in part by the claimant's own choices and by manufacturing or logistics.

The tribunal rejected the workload, managed move and special leave complaints, finding that the claimant's work was not shown to be excessive, that work was reduced when she asked, and that temporary line-management and secondment arrangements were made while other roles were explored. It also rejected the claims arising from the 2019 mid-year review and the March 2020 appraisal, holding that Ms Stuart's and Ms Buzzoni's comments were performance-related and not caused by disability or by the claimant's adjustment requests. Although Mr Cupis' off-camera grievance meeting was said to be inappropriate, the tribunal found it did not amount to harassment, and it found Ms Mode's investigation was thorough. Mr Cupis did, however, internally uphold the special-leave point in the grievance outcome, recommending that the absence record be corrected.

The later complaints about the DHSC secondment, Dr Adeodu's assessment, 10 South Colonnade, the 2022 special leave and sickness-record decisions, travel by taxi, phased return, Access to Work, ergonomic assessment, hygiene information and later grievance-handling all failed on the facts or because the tribunal found the respondent had already made the relevant arrangements or was not under the duty claimed. The whistleblowing disclosures in August 2019 and July 2020 were accepted as protected disclosures, but the pleaded detriments were not proved because the tribunal found the emails and papers at issue were assessing the wording and evidential basis of the complaints rather than retaliating against the claimant.