Dr A Chakraborty v Dr S Sukumaran and 1 other — 2025

Dr A Chakraborty was employed as a GP at Cloister Road Surgery from 2017 and was accepted to have been disabled by Long Covid during her prolonged sickness absence from October 2020. The case concerned a dispute over the handling of her absence, occupational health reports, proposed return-to-work arrangements, an internal grievance process, her resignation on 5 April 2024, and two tribunal claims presented in April and May 2024.

On the direct disability discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected most pleaded allegations because they were either not detriments or were too minor to amount to actionable treatment. It accepted that inviting her to a formal medical capability meeting in March 2022 with less than 72 hours' notice was detrimental, and that shortcomings in the grievance investigation and appeal were also detrimental, but held that those matters were not shown to have been because of disability. Other allegations, including removal from a work WhatsApp group, delay in providing minutes, and comments made in meetings, were not upheld.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that the only allegation that clearly met the unfavourable-treatment threshold was the March 2022 invitation to the medical capability meeting. It accepted that this was because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely absence from work, and that the respondents' stated aim of maintaining a safe, financially viable and stable practice did not make the short-notice formal meeting proportionate. However, that complaint was presented more than two years after the act complained of and was dismissed as out of time under s123 EqA 2010.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because three of the four pleaded PCPs were not established on the facts, and the fourth was doubted as a valid PCP because it concerned a one-off response rather than an across-the-board practice. The tribunal also found that the pleaded substantial disadvantages were not coherently linked to any PCP, and that the proposed adjustments did not identify a step the respondents were obliged to take. The harassment and victimisation claims failed because the conduct complained of was not capable of amounting to harassment or was not shown to be because of the protected acts relied on.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that, although the grievance process had errors and imperfections, the real repudiatory breach was the respondents' abandonment of efforts to get the claimant back to work after Dr Diack's report advised a phased return. The claimant did not affirm the contract, and her resignation on 5 April 2024 amounted to constructive dismissal. The tribunal held the dismissal unfair, but it did not determine remedy at this stage and directed that remedy issues be dealt with separately.