Dr Coulton (Claimant’s father) For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and OCD, but not on the basis of learning difficulties. It held that the respondent ought reasonably to have known about the anxiety and OCD because the claimant had said she got anxious, took medication and took time out, Ms Godley knew she was on medication, and a local authority letter stated that records showed anxiety and asked what adjustments were being made. By contrast, the learning-difficulties evidence did not show a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the return-to-work meeting on 16 March 2017 and the appeal on 12 April 2017 were held without notice and without the right to be accompanied, contrary to the respondent's own policy, and that this was a practice placing the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. It held that allowing accompaniment, giving notice and fuller information, explaining the significance of the meetings, and following the formal procedure would have been reasonable adjustments. It rejected the separate request for a post-resignation meeting with Dr Coulton as a PCP or adjustment. The tribunal found that the failure to follow the procedure led to a written warning, and that the warning was a material reason why Banana Moon withdrew its job offer.

The victimisation claim failed because the detriments relied on did not occur because of the protected acts. The Banana Moon reference pre-dated the threat of legal action, the Daisy Chain reference was driven by the DBS referral and the dilemma created by that referral, and the DBS referral followed a reasonable investigation after the child escaped and was made on LADO advice. The harassment claim succeeded only in relation to comments that the claimant should stand on her own two feet and not involve her father; the tribunal found those remarks were related to disability and could have the effect of creating a hostile, intimidating or degrading environment. It rejected the other alleged incidents as either not proved or not related to disability. Remedy was not determined, and the tribunal said a remedy hearing would be listed.