Miss Naila Haitham v London Borough of Sutton and 2 others — 2025

The tribunal recorded that the claimant, a Health Visitor Team Leader, brought complaints of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The respondents conceded that the claimant was disabled at the material time because of a back problem, and the tribunal identified her ethnicity as Black African Arab.

The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination and harassment complaints, finding that a number of allegations did not happen as alleged and that the events found to have happened were not related to race. It also dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaint, finding that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of disability.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's need to work from home arose from disability and that being unable to work as a Health Visitor Team Leader was a disadvantage, but found the decision was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims concerning clinical cover and supervision. The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed because the alleged PCPs were either not established or not applied to the claimant, and the victimisation claim was dismissed because Ms Giles did not know of the grievance and contacted the claimant to oversee work during another manager's absence.