Mrs. T. Preston v Teledyne FLIR — 2026

Mrs Preston's employment ended on 31 January 2024 after the notice period arising from her email of 18 October 2023. The Tribunal found that she intended to resign when she sent the email, later regretted that decision, and had not sent it merely to alert Teledyne FLIR to difficulties in her role. Applying Johnson v Monty Smith Garages Ltd and Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice, it held that the Respondent was entitled to treat the email as a resignation, that it did not dismiss her, and that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint therefore failed.

On direct disability discrimination, the Tribunal found that Ms Cambria decided not to permit retraction before she knew of Mrs Preston's ADHD and therefore could not have made that decision because of disability. Mr Cooper and Ms Hildyard found no basis to reverse Ms Cambria's decision, while Ms Page and Ms Wade were not decision-makers. Mrs Preston conceded that the other pleaded acts or omissions were not because of disability, and the evidence did not support them. The Tribunal found no primary facts from which to infer less favourable treatment because of disability and dismissed the s.13 complaint.

For discrimination arising from disability, the Tribunal accepted from the diagnostic and oral evidence that the resignation email arose in consequence of ADHD-related impulsivity. It found that, after Ms Cambria learned of the ADHD on 21 November 2023, the refusal to allow retraction between that date and 8 December 2023 was unfavourable treatment and discrimination arising from disability. It also found that there had been no dismissal and that after 8 December Mrs Preston no longer wanted to retract her resignation, so Mr Cooper and Ms Hildyard could not have permitted retraction. Although the s.15 complaint was made out in relation to the earlier refusal, that conduct preceded the 27 January 2024 limitation cut-off. With no evidence or submissions supporting a just-and-equitable extension or a continuing act, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments complaint after Mrs Preston accepted that the three alleged PCPs were not PCPs; it independently found that they were not genuine PCPs, treating them as business decisions and, in the third instance, Ms Cambria's response to the resignation. It also found that when the third alleged PCP applied, Ms Cambria did not know of the disability or any substantial disadvantage. The Tribunal added that, if its merits conclusion were wrong, the complaint was out of time.

On harassment, the Tribunal found that Ms Cambria's response during the 21 November 2023 conversation was direct and professional and did not meet the s.26 test. Mrs Preston conceded that three other allegations were not harassment. The remaining allegation concerning scrutiny of her working practices was unsupported: the Tribunal found that Ms Cambria had only asked Ms Tamber whether Mrs Preston was on annual leave. The harassment complaint was dismissed.