Mr J Hunter v SmartFrame Technologies Ltd — 2025

Mr Hunter worked for SmartFrame Technologies Ltd as the sole Salesforce developer and was diagnosed with ADHD in June 2022. He told HR, received Access to Work support, and took part in coaching sessions with his line manager, Ms Duggan, and HR. The tribunal found the relationship was initially positive, but later became strained in the context of a start-up environment where priorities changed quickly and employees were expected to be flexible.

On the disability discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal examined allegations arising from the coaching sessions, Slack communications, a social event, a London hotel booking, and the 8 January 2024 meeting. Applying the section 26 approach in Richmond Pharmacology and Pemberton, it found some conduct was awkward or unwise, including Ms Duggan talking over the claimant at times and HR allowing her to express frustration on 8 January, but it did not find unwanted conduct related to disability that met the harassment threshold. It also rejected the direct discrimination claim under section 13.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal accepted that several PCPs existed and placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of ADHD, including working without regular uninterrupted breaks, responding immediately to unscheduled communications, frequent interruptions, last-minute priority changes, and rapid task switching. It also found that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disadvantage. However, it held that the respondent had already made reasonable adjustments where practicable, including remote working, flexible hours, breaks, written communication, procedures to reduce interruptions, Access to Work support, and coaching, and that further steps sought by the claimant were not required in the start-up context.

The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found the relevant unfavourable treatment was driven by cashflow and management considerations, not by something arising in consequence of disability. It held that the removal of full sick pay in January 2024, the refusal of the training budget, and the handling of the 8 January meeting were not caused by disability-related factors. The tribunal said that, even if a link had been established, the sick-pay decision would in any event have been a proportionate response to the respondent's financial position.

The breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims failed because the written contract entitled the claimant only to SSP and the sickness policy was not incorporated as a contractual right to full sick pay. The victimisation claim failed because the 10 January 2024 request for grievance and bullying policies was not a protected act, the first protected act was the 15 January email, and the later April complaints were protected acts but the respondent's replies and requests for grievance details were not treated as detriments. The constructive dismissal claim also failed because the 8 January meeting and the sick-pay decision did not amount to a fundamental breach. The hearing was listed for liability only, so no remedy award was recorded.