Mr MacMillan, Counsel For the v Mr. Bownes, solicitor — 2018

The claimant was employed as a personal fitness trainer and had generalised anxiety disorder, which the respondent accepted was a disability. Occupational health recommended that she not undertake hygiene-related tasks, that she be exempt from blood testing, and that her hours be reduced and arranged consecutively. The tribunal found that there was a delay in communicating those restrictions to relevant managers, and that this lack of communication underpinned the first incident relied on by the claimant.

On the facts found, the tribunal held that the direct discrimination claim succeeded in part because of remarks made by Ms Norman during the claimant's return to work period. It also found discrimination arising from disability in part: the 30 May 2018 towel incident with Mr Foord, the failure to have a robust system for disseminating the claimant's health information and training managers, Ms Norman's comments, and the omission of the Foord incident from the grievance appeal outcome letter were all treated as unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability. The tribunal likewise found harassment under s26 in relation to the Foord incident, Ms Norman's remarks, and the meeting with Mr Bugg.

The victimisation claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had carried out protected acts, including telling managers about her disability and lodging a grievance on 8 November 2018, but it did not accept that the alleged detriments were caused by those protected acts. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the grievance delay, the restriction on training clients at another gym, the handling of the grievance meeting attendance issue, the Nestle point, or the grievance appeal omission were shown to be retaliatory.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded in part. The tribunal identified PCPs requiring cleaning tasks and blood work, and the placement of used-towel cages in the corridor to the staff room. It found that the claimant was not actually required to perform the excluded tasks, but that the respondent did not consistently take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage caused by the location of the towel cages. Remedy was not decided in this judgment and was left to a separate hearing.