Ms B Buckle v Secretary of State for Justice Heard — 2024

Ms B Buckle worked for the Secretary of State for Justice in the London Probation Service from 2015 and became a Finance Officer in 2018. She was on long sickness absence from December 2020, returned on a phased basis in November 2021, and remained in work on compressed hours and some home-working arrangements before resigning on 5 September 2022. The respondent conceded that, apart from DVT, she was disabled at the material times by the impairments relied on.

Applying the approach in Environment Agency v Rowan, the tribunal rejected the reasonable-adjustments claim. It found that the first two alleged PCPs were never applied because the claimant was not required to work full time in the office or five days a week, and in practice she continued to work from home or under the existing compressed-hours arrangement. As to the flexible-working application, the tribunal found there was a requirement to apply, but no credible evidence that she was harassed into doing so; it held that dispensing with the application would not have been a reasonable adjustment because the policy existed to assess business needs and maintain consistency. It found no evidence that refresher training was not provided as a PCP, and although the TOIL expiry rule was applied, the tribunal held there was no proved substantial disadvantage or reasonable basis to say the respondent knew of one.

The direct disability discrimination allegations also failed. The tribunal found that Mr Wisdom regularly kept in touch, referred the claimant to occupational health, held Formal Attendance Review Meetings, suggested Sick Leave Excusal, supported the flexible-working process in part, and arranged PAM Assist. It did not accept that he said he did not believe or care about her illness, or that he harassed or threatened her at the meetings relied on. It also rejected the allegations about delay in sending medical evidence, the alleged failure to arrange a DSE assessment, and the alleged refusal of part-time working. Even if any of those matters had been proved, the tribunal was not satisfied that they were because of disability.

The constructive dismissal claim failed on the same factual findings. The tribunal held that there was no discernible act or omission amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the Malik implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and it found that the loss of 19.25 hours' TOIL resulted from the claimant not claiming it with timesheets within a reasonable time. All claims were dismissed and no remedy arose.