Miss M Kalina v Digitas LBI Limited — 2025

The claimant applied for roles with the respondent and was unsuccessful after reaching the final two candidates for one role and then interviewing for a role working with Client B. She brought claims of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and direct sex discrimination. The direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn and dismissed on that basis.

The tribunal dismissed the direct race and direct disability discrimination claims as not well founded. For the discrimination arising from disability claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had not hired the claimant for the Client B role because it considered she would not be able to cope with the stress of that role, and that this was something arising in consequence of her disability.

The tribunal went on to find that the respondent had a legitimate aim of placing suitable candidates into open roles based on its knowledge of the role and the candidate's abilities. It accepted that the Client B account was particularly stressful and that, after exploring with the claimant how she would deal with stress, the respondent had shown the treatment was proportionate. All claims were dismissed.