Mrs Y Barron v Medway NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

Mrs Y Barron was employed by Medway NHS Foundation Trust and worked as a trainee accredited clinical coder from 25 August 2021. The tribunal accepted that she had disabilities within the Equality Act 2010, namely migraines and depression/anxiety, and that during her first training year she experienced a recurrence of migraines and a depressive episode while dealing with significant family pressures. Two earlier section 15 allegations were withdrawn, leaving the claim about the continuation of the performance process after disclosure and the reasonable-adjustments complaint for determination.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that after the claimant disclosed her disabilities on 9 August 2022 the respondent treated her unfavourably by continuing the performance management process rather than suspending it or remaining at the informal stage. It accepted that the respondent had a legitimate aim of ensuring trainee coders met the required competency level and sat the coding exam within three years, but held that the manner in which the process was run was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal found that the claimant's migraines affected her vision, reading, concentration and information processing, and that Mr Carter had already formed the view before the appraisal that she was unlikely to meet the required standard and should be managed through the process.

On the reasonable-adjustments claim, the tribunal held that the requirements to meet the National Clinical Coding Standards, maintain a log book and comply with internal standards, together with the performance-management process for not meeting those requirements, were PCPs. It found that those PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because, during the flare-up of her conditions, she needed longer to assimilate knowledge and could not work at the same speed as her peers. The tribunal held that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disadvantage from 9 August 2022, and that the Occupational Health report confirmed the effect of the conditions on reading, concentration and work performance.

The tribunal found that the respondent should have remained at the informal stage while the claimant recovered, allowed more time for her medication changes and counselling to take effect, adjusted duties and targets, provided supportive coaching, and avoided the repeated audits and short timescales it used. It also held that if time limits were engaged, it would be just and equitable to extend time because the claimant pursued the internal process to conclusion, appealed, contacted ACAS promptly and issued proceedings after that process ended. This judgment decided liability only and does not record a monetary award.