In Person For v Respondent — 2020

Ms Dorothy Masawi, a disabled employee of Leonard Cheshire Disability following a workplace accident on 28 July 2016, brought claims under s.15, s.21 and s.27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that disability was conceded, preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where there was conflict, and found the claimant unreliable in several respects. It also held that the earlier 2015-16 events about probation, grievance and discipline were not relevant to the disability claims because they pre-dated the onset of disability.

On the s.15 claim, the tribunal rejected each alleged instance of unfavourable treatment, including the October 2016 acupuncture request, the September 2017 holiday letter, the February 2018 contact letter, the 21 May 2018 telephone call, the 7 June 2018 meeting, the June and July 2018 return-to-work assessments, the OH referral, the handling of the 22 July 2018 complaint, and the alleged delay in her return to work. It found the respondent was trying to work out what the claimant could safely do in the light of conflicting medical information, the claimant's own descriptions of pain and restrictions, and the need to protect both the claimant and residents at Springfield. The tribunal also held that allegation (b) about the holiday letter was out of time, although it would have failed on the merits in any event. Even if some delay amounted to unfavourable treatment, the tribunal held it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of a safe return to work.

On reasonable adjustments, the agreed PCP was the requirement that the claimant be able to undertake the full range of her duties. The tribunal held that the respondent engaged in a conscientious process of investigation through meetings, GP fit notes, OH reports and an independent consultant, and that temporary redeployment to Atholl House for a 12-week phased return was a reasonable adjustment. The claimant's refusal based on the absence of a mobility clause did not make the adjustment unreasonable. On victimisation, the 22 July 2018 complaint was treated as a protected act, but Mrs Carter's handling of it was found not to amount to a detriment and not to be because of that protected act. The claims were dismissed in their entirety.