Ms S Hargreaves v Greater Manchester Combined Authority — 2026

The respondent conceded that Ms Hargreaves was disabled by anxiety and depression during the material period. The Tribunal found that the respondent had constructive knowledge of her disability by May 2021: its records included her earlier mental-health history, her 2016 self-report of disability, the 2019 Occupational Health material, and her 2021 communications about prolonged stress, anxiety, GP assistance and employee-assistance support. Reasonable enquiries would have disclosed the recurring and substantial nature of the impairment.

The section 15 claim was upheld. The four-hour stress-risk-assessment meeting on 29 August 2023, the capability meeting the following day and the five-hour Wellness Recovery Action Plan meeting on 6 September were unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's prolonged disability-related absence. The respondent also treated her unfavourably by failing to address or resolve, in a timely and adequate way, the workplace stressors identified in her email of 5 February 2023. Although workplace safety, risk management and effective reintegration were legitimate aims, the treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving them: the concerns could have been addressed sooner and the meetings could have been shorter and spaced further apart.

The reasonable-adjustments claim was partially upheld. The Tribunal found breaches concerning the length and timing of meetings, the frequency of weekly telephone calls, payment for the claimant's private counselling, timely action on the bullying allegation, timely implementation of the March 2023 Occupational Health recommendations, and timely action on the stressors in the 5 February email. It found that shorter meetings with recovery time and less frequent calls were practicable, and that funding the existing private counselling would have avoided duplicating treatment while supporting recovery. It did not find that the respondent was required to commence a formal bullying investigation without a formal complaint, but found that the issue should have been addressed sooner through consultation and available informal measures.

Harassment related to disability was upheld because the weekly calls continued despite the claimant asking for reduced frequency, produced little material progress and reasonably had an intimidating, hostile and offensive effect in the context of her disability and recovery. The victimisation claim was also upheld: the grievance was a protected act, and the lengthy meetings and frequent calls were detriments materially influenced by the respondent's attempt to address matters raised in that grievance. The Tribunal additionally found that the constructive dismissal itself constituted disability-related harassment because harassment sufficiently influenced the overall repudiatory conduct.

Direct sex discrimination was partially upheld. The respondent's policy required an Occupational Health referral within 21 days, but Ms Hargreaves was not referred within that period, while her male comparator, Gary Wilkinson, was referred within the applicable timeframe. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof shifted and that the respondent had not shown that the difference in treatment was in no sense because of sex. The allegations concerning counselling or treatment and regular contact did not succeed because no comparator was identified for those matters. The Tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis to determine the late-referral complaint.