Miss B Norgrove v The Back Up Trust — 2021

Miss B Norgrove had longstanding anxiety and depression, and the tribunal found the respondent ought reasonably to have known she was disabled by reason of those conditions. It extended time for the sex discrimination complaints on a just and equitable basis, but dismissed them on the merits. The tribunal found no basis to infer sex discrimination from the evidence: the comments about the claimant's dress were vague, there was no reliable evidence that Mr McCallion made the alleged remark, and the respondent's workforce included women in senior roles.

On pay and recruitment, the tribunal found that the claimant was paid her contractual assistant salary, later increased to £19,475, and that she had no legal entitlement to the higher fundraiser/coordinator rate during the short period when the team was understaffed. The refusal to increase pay was because the extra duties were temporary and the vacant posts were expected to be filled shortly. The tribunal accepted that the successful candidate for the Events and Challenge Fundraiser role was Mr Reece Remedios, and it held that the decision not to appoint the claimant was driven by Mr McCallion's concerns arising from Ms Prince's negative feedback and by the view that Mr Remedios was the better candidate; sex was not a factor.

In the disability claims, the tribunal held that the claimant's anxiety and depression meant she was vulnerable to the requirement to share a room on the Edinburgh City Skills course, but it did not accept that the respondent ought reasonably to have known before the panic attack that sharing would place her at a substantial disadvantage. After the panic attack on 27 September 2019, the respondent did appreciate that room sharing was causing difficulty and a room swap was discussed, but the room-sharing and personal-care PCP allegations still failed overall. The tribunal did, however, hold that the respondent should have kept the course evaluation documentation confidential to staff with a legitimate need to see it. That confidentiality failure succeeded both as a failure to make reasonable adjustments and as indirect disability discrimination because disabled people with anxiety and depression were particularly disadvantaged by adverse feedback being left accessible to all employees.

The harassment claim succeeded on the reference to 'Beth's midnight adventures' in the course evaluation. The tribunal found the comment was unwanted and related to disability because it referred to the claimant leaving the course after a panic attack, and although it was not intended to offend, it was objectively reasonable for it to have the effect of creating a humiliating or offensive environment. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint failed because the claimant had no legal entitlement to the higher rate she sought. The judgment records no monetary award.