Ms A Jinadu v Department for Work and Pensions — 2024

The claimant was employed as a Higher Executive Officer on the respondent's Policy Graduate Scheme from 4 October 2021 until 16 August 2022. It was not disputed that she was disabled. The tribunal found that her disability meant her absence levels were likely to be higher than those of a non-disabled person and that applying the probationary attendance trigger placed her at a substantial disadvantage.

The tribunal upheld the reasonable-adjustments complaint only in relation to the absence-management PCP. It found that a planned procedure absence should have been discounted and that the respondent did not properly apply the adjustment it considered reasonable when assessing the level of absence it could tolerate. Other reasonable-adjustment complaints failed, including complaints about buddy support, structured support, delayed adjustments, capability procedures, start date, the Disability Confident Scheme, full-time work, and a wireless headset.

The remaining complaints were dismissed. The tribunal did not uphold the direct disability discrimination or disability harassment allegations about the Occupational Health referral. It found that the claimant's dismissal was not unlawful discrimination arising from disability because dismissal based on performance was objectively justified. The direct race discrimination and race-related harassment allegations were not upheld on the facts.