Mr Brown (Solicitor) For the v Mr Dilaimi — 2021

Ms Y Solomon was employed as a Band 4 Mental Health Caseworker and was dismissed on 3 December 2018 after a Managing Poor Performance process. The parties agreed that the hearing was on liability only, with remedy to be dealt with separately if required. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by lupus and related Hughes and Sjogren's syndromes, depression and anxiety, and anaemia due to B12 deficiency, and found that her concentration was affected by fatigue from lupus and blurred vision from Sjogren's syndrome.

On the whistleblowing issue, the tribunal held that the 9 May 2018 grievance about confidential prisoner/patient data being sent to the claimant's personal email address was a qualifying disclosure and that, given the sensitive nature of the information, it was made in the public interest. It nevertheless found no evidence that this disclosure caused or contributed to the recommendation for dismissal, so the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim failed.

The tribunal found that the claimant had received repeated Improvement Required performance ratings before being moved into the formal poor performance procedure in May 2018. It accepted that the respondent's reason for dismissal was capability, not conduct, and that the process included written warnings, a final written warning, weekly meetings, support and training, and an appeal. It held that the dismissal decision and appeal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that a requirement to carry a full caseload was a PCP, but it found that the respondent had already reduced workload in several ways, including reducing weekly QAable output to 12 pieces, removing prison transfers, and placing the claimant on "neither" so she did not pick up colleagues' work. It also found that home working for lupus flare-ups, a fixed desk, refresher training, and management support were provided. The further adjustments sought, including transfer to another team, a six-month extension to the performance process, and a buddy, were not found to be reasonable on the evidence.

Under s.15 EqA 2010, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's slower working pace arose in consequence of disability and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment. It nevertheless held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of maintaining safe, timely and accurate decision-making in a sensitive public service. The separate s.47B whistleblowing detriment claim was withdrawn and was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.