Kelly-Anne Chester v Department for Work and Pensions — 2020

The respondent accepted that the claimant had a disability and that it knew of it. The tribunal found that her disability caused problems with attending work at intended start times and caused her sickness absences. It rejected the harassment allegations, including alleged comments and tone in meetings, finding that the specific alleged comments were not made or did not have the required purpose or effect under s26 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal upheld parts of the s15 claim. It found that the April 2018 invitation to a disciplinary meeting, the dismissal, and the rejection of the appeal were unfavourable treatment because of timekeeping or absence issues arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal accepted that operating a probationary arrangement requiring new employees to reach reasonable standards was a legitimate aim, but found that the respondent had not shown the disciplinary invitation, dismissal, or appeal rejection were proportionate means of achieving that aim.

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal found that the April 2018 warning should not have been applied because the claimant's attendance and timekeeping were improving and were consistent with occupational health expectations and the workplace adjustment passport. It also found that the management of the claimant's absence from 30 April to 29 May 2018 and the period after her return gave insufficient regard to the seriousness of her medical condition and focused on progressing to dismissal rather than understanding what support or adjustments might assist.

The tribunal upheld reasonable adjustments complaints about working hours and the probation policy. It found that working 10.30am to 6.30pm with a half-hour lunch break placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that part-time hours with a later start and longer break allowance could and should have been agreed. It also found that, by the decision-maker meeting on 6 July 2018, extending the probationary period would have been a reasonable adjustment. The remaining reasonable adjustments complaints and the indirect discrimination claim about absence reporting were dismissed.