Mr G Temme, Legal Assistant on 17 June 2019; and thereafter in person until 21 June 2019. No attendance by or v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed as a Reading Recovery Teacher and later Literacy Support Teacher at Michael Faraday Primary School. The tribunal accepted that she had a qualifying disability from February 2017 onwards, and that she had a long period of sickness absence associated with anxiety and depression. The employer obtained several occupational health reports, held sickness guidance meetings, and in 2015 had already adjusted her role so she worked with literacy support rather than the full range of senior teacher duties.

The unreasonable adjustments complaint under paragraph 16.1 was withdrawn. The remaining reasonable adjustments complaint under paragraph 16.2 concerned the claimant's request, made in her 22 February 2017 letter, to return to her old role or to work in a hybrid role combining her former and adapted duties. The tribunal held that the request to revert to the old role was unambiguously refused at the 17 March 2017 meeting and confirmed in the 11 May 2017 letter, but it extended time to the date the claim was presented. It also found that the hybrid-role point was either in time or time-extended, but in any event failed on the merits.

On the merits of paragraph 16.2, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been able to articulate clearly why teaching key stage 2 children, rather than key stage 1 children, was outside her capabilities or why the proposed adjustment would alleviate the disadvantage. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the school and the children's needs had to be balanced against the claimant's request, and concluded that it was not reasonable to require the respondent to restore the earlier role or create the proposed hybrid role. The tribunal also noted that the employer was not required to create a special post merely for the claimant.

Paragraph 16.3 relied on the final occupational health report of 19 September 2017. The tribunal held that Dr Remington was not positively recommending that the school adopt either the old role or the hybrid role; rather, he was saying that consideration could be given to such options. It treated this complaint as ancillary to paragraph 16.2 and dismissed it for the same reasons. The unfair dismissal complaint was also dismissed: the tribunal found capability to be the genuine reason for dismissal, held that the process was fair, and concluded that dismissal was within the reasonable range of responses given the claimant's long absence, the medical evidence, and the employer's operational needs.