Mrs Sue Elliott v Home Office — 2025

The claimant was disabled by reason of Auto-Immune diseases, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Fibromyalgia and Immune Dysfunction. The tribunal accepted that the respondent did not know of the claimant's disability or disability passport before the claimant's email of 25 April 2021, and dismissed the direct discrimination complaint because the claimant had not proved that her requested managed move was refused or that there were facts from which discrimination could be inferred.

The tribunal upheld parts of the discrimination arising from disability complaint. It found unfavourable treatment in the mismanagement of the first Occupational Health referral, the need to organise and undertake a second referral, and the sending of personal data to Health Management without consent. It rejected the respondent's justification case in relation to the way the referral was made and the issues that followed. The separate section 15 allegation based on working part-time or flexibly was dismissed, including because the tribunal was not satisfied that RB had been verbally aggressive as alleged.

The tribunal upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint. It found that the PCP of requiring work during standard office hours over a working week in the IMS role put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that by September 2021 the respondent knew of that disadvantage and could reasonably have been expected to know by the end of July 2021. It found that allowing work outside core office hours, or moving the claimant to a role allowing more flexible working, would have been reasonable steps.

The reasons section records that the harassment complaints were dismissed because, although there was insufficient management action to address implementation of the workplace adjustment passport, the statutory harassment test was not met. The formal judgment section states the opposite, so the harassment outcome is unclear. The tribunal upheld victimisation, finding that the claimant's October and November 2021 grievances were protected acts and that RB's continued management of the claimant was a detriment. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing.