In person, assisted by Mr C For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant began work with the respondent in June 2014 and moved in July 2015 to a specialist physiotherapist post in the haemoncology therapy team. The tribunal accepted that by September 2016 she was disabled by mixed anxiety and depression, and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that from then. It also accepted that she had made a specific complaint in March 2016 about Ms S and the "headfuck" comment, but found that the respondent's managers responded imperfectly rather than as part of a deliberate campaign against her.

The tribunal held that a number of the claimant's pre-November 2017 complaints and grievances were out of time, but it still considered the later return-to-work, suspension and dismissal-related allegations. It found that the respondent sometimes failed to handle matters as well as it should have done, including not always properly addressing early complaints and not always giving the claimant the structured support she wanted. Even so, it rejected her case that the respondent was acting pursuant to a plan to remove her from employment, and found that the managers' actions were driven by their genuine view of the deteriorating working relationship and the pressures that created.

In August and September 2017 the claimant asked for a timed agenda for meetings and hearings, including the stage 3 grievance hearing, the return-to-work meeting and the resumed dismissal hearing. The tribunal found that the failure to provide timed agendas for those meetings was indirect disability discrimination and also a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It dismissed the other disability discrimination claims, including direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation and discrimination arising from disability, holding that the relevant treatment was not because of disability or protected acts, and where it was unfavourable it was justified as proportionate.

The tribunal also rejected the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the respondent had established some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It held that the later investigation, formal hearing and appeal processes were fair overall, even though some aspects of the process were adversarial and some decisions could have been handled more flexibly. The claimant was owed unpaid wages of £1,472.40 and one day's notice pay, holiday pay was conceded by the claimant, and a remedy hearing was to be listed for the successful disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims unless the parties could agree remedy.