in person For the v Respondent — 2025

The tribunal heard three joined claims brought by Ms Mary Brockwell against Look Ahead Care and Support Limited. It found that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of Crohn's disease and generalised anxiety disorder, but it did not accept that autism spectrum disorder or ADHD were established on the evidence. The claimant worked as an independent domestic abuse adviser from 3 April 2023 until her resignation on 8 February 2024, with 8 March 2024 as her last day of employment.

In claim one, the tribunal rejected the whistleblowing detriment claim because the 23 June 2023 letter sent on 26 June 2023 was not a protected disclosure: although the claimant believed the bedroom restriction at Colebrook House was wrong, she did not reasonably believe it showed a legal failure. It also found that the performance improvement plan and the reduction in client work were driven by concerns about the claimant's performance and the adequacy of her DASH risk assessment, not by any disclosure. The direct disability discrimination claim also failed for the same reason: the treatment complained of was not because of disability.

The tribunal did, however, accept that the 26 June 2023 request for reasonable adjustments was a protected act for victimisation purposes, but it held that the treatment complained of was not because of that act. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim failed because the adjustment sought, preventing amendment of DASH assessments, was not reasonable in the circumstances and would have undermined client safety. The harassment allegation based on the 28 June 2023 meeting was dismissed because the tribunal did not accept that Ms Dawn Spence made the alleged comment, and it preferred the respondent's evidence on the context of the discussion.

In claim two, the tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment and victimisation claims arising from events in October and November 2023. It found the probation extension, the handling of the grievance, the withdrawal of special leave, the move to statutory sick pay, the handling of emails, the job advertisement, and the reduction in client work were all explained by the claimant's probation status, sickness absence, policy, and performance process, rather than by any protected disclosure or protected act. The advertised role was found to be for a qualified fixed-term IDVA and not the claimant's role.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 also failed. The tribunal found there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, so there was no constructive dismissal to accept. It also found that the claimant had not proved that her resignation on 8 February 2024 was caused by any breach, and that there was no protected disclosure capable of supporting a whistleblowing dismissal claim. All claims in all three proceedings were dismissed.