Mrs P Omonkhegbe v Transport for London — 2020

The tribunal held that the Claimant had depression and anxiety amounting to a disability from January 2019, with the Respondent having constructive knowledge by 1 April 2019. It nevertheless dismissed the disability discrimination and disability harassment complaints. It found that the challenged decisions about flexible working, redeployment, seating, grievances, furlough and contact were not because of disability or something arising from disability, or did not meet the statutory harassment test. The indirect disability claim about Saturday working failed because the tribunal found no evidence of group disadvantage.

The race discrimination and race harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that Employee A's circumstances were materially different from the Claimant's, including the stage of the flexible working process, the mental health circumstances presented, and the working pattern sought. It found no basis to infer race played any part in the Respondent's decisions, no policy of preferring flexible working applications from non-black employees, and no racial basis for Mr Ross raising his voice during a telephone call.

The pregnancy and maternity complaint partly succeeded. The tribunal found that in 2017 Ms Stevenson required the Claimant to work more hours than her GP had said she was fit to work while pregnant, despite the Claimant reporting that she was struggling. It found pregnancy was a significant part of the reason for that treatment. The separate pregnancy and maternity complaint about the later flexible working refusal failed because the tribunal found that decision was made for business reasons.

The marriage discrimination and victimisation complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found questions about the Claimant's husband's work were asked to understand childcare arrangements and were not less favourable treatment because she was married. It accepted two protected acts for the victimisation claim but found the alleged detriments were not done because of those protected acts. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the parties were directed to seek agreement or request a remedy hearing.