Representing herself For the v Miss J Whiteley, Solicitor Advocate — 2025

Miss Roberts was accepted to be disabled by reason of dyslexia and stress/anxiety. The Trust also knew of her conditions. She had long service as a PWP, but NHS England required PWPs to hold the relevant qualification and registration. The tribunal found that the Trust supported her through the competency Scheme, reduced her workload, arranged supervision, and made adjustments during the hearing itself. It rejected her case that she failed the Scheme because her dyslexic software was not working, finding instead that the failure was due to knowledge gaps, including because her earlier training had been many years before.

The reasonable adjustment claims failed across the board. The tribunal held that the Trust did not apply a general PCP of putting her through the Scheme; rather, it offered her an option that she chose. Even if a PCP existed, it found no substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people and no reasonable adjustment breach in not moving her to the 1-year Trainee PWP course, changing supervisor, taking a different approach to management, or altering the phased return to work. On the software point, the tribunal found that Miss Roberts did not clearly tell the Trust that Dragon was still a problem for the Scheme exam in time for them to act on it, and in any event the exam feedback pointed to knowledge gaps rather than spelling or typing issues.

The section 15 claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that not having the software on the laptop, the June 2023 move from Band 5 to Band 4, and the October 2023 contract variation were not treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability in the legal sense, and that the national registration requirement was a legitimate aim in any event. It found the move to Band 4 flowed from the fact that Miss Roberts did not hold the required qualification and had not enrolled on the 1-year course in time, and that the Trust had offered her other options and 3 months' pay protection.

The harassment claim based on seven emails sent between 24 April and 22 May 2023 was dismissed. The tribunal found the emails were not related to disability, were sent in the context of sickness contact and the approaching application deadline for the 1-year course, and were not intended to or reasonably capable of creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal also refused Miss Roberts' late amendment to add an unfair constructive dismissal claim, mainly because it was made very late, was out of time, and would have required new evidence and disclosure.