Miss R Watson v Ms S Parrott and 1 other — 2023

The claimant began work for Achieving for Children Community Interest Company on 4 September 2019 as a Post 16 Outreach Learning Mentor in the Virtual School. The tribunal found that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of anxiety and depression and dyslexia. It also found that the respondents did not know that at recruitment, but should have had constructive knowledge of her dyslexia from 23 October 2019 and of her anxiety and depression from 18 December 2019, and that an occupational health referral should have been made at those points.

The direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. On the probation extensions, the tribunal found the relevant reason was the claimant's absence and that a comparator with the same absence history would have been treated the same way. It also found that exclusion from management, HR and occupational health discussions about the claimant's employment and health would have occurred in the same way for a non-disabled comparator. The allegations that the respondents consciously gave her more work than she could handle, failed to deal with her grievance, or made a safeguarding allegation because of disability were not made out.

The discrimination arising from disability complaints also failed. The tribunal held that, where the conduct occurred, it was not shown to be because of something arising in consequence of disability. In particular, the safeguarding referrals made on 26 and 27 March 2020 were found to have been prompted by safeguarding concerns about the claimant's son and by the respondents' statutory duties, not by the claimant having sought adjustments to her workload or working practices. Where the tribunal considered justification, it accepted the respondents' stated legitimate aims and found the treatment proportionate.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal identified two PCPs: the level of workload attaching to the role and the practice of more than one person assigning work to the post. It accepted that the claimant's dyslexia meant written work took longer, which created a substantial disadvantage, but it did not accept that she had established a substantial disadvantage arising from anxiety and depression. The tribunal found that reduced workload and more time for specific tasks would have helped, but held that those steps were not reasonable in the circumstances, while support within the organisation had been offered and, in some respects, provided.

The harassment complaints were dismissed. Most alleged incidents were found not to have happened. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was criticised on 13 March 2020 about tuition funding, but held that this was a management correction made to ensure oversight and equity, not conduct meeting the statutory harassment threshold. It also held that the safeguarding referrals, although distressing to the claimant, were not related to disability and were made for lawful safeguarding reasons. The claim of constructive dismissal failed for the same overall reason as the other claims: the tribunal found no discriminatory course of conduct, no last straw, and no constructive dismissal when the claimant resigned on 6 November 2020.