Mr D Hamill v The Information Commissioner’s Office — 2024

Mr D Hamill was employed by the Information Commissioner’s Office as a Senior Insight and Compliance Officer and was accepted to be disabled by reason of ADHD and anxiety/depression. His claims were for disability discrimination and victimisation. Before the merits were decided, the tribunal refused a late amendment seeking to add a further harassment allegation based on comments disclosed on 13 June 2024, because the claimant had not known of the comments when they were made and the Selkent factors favoured refusal.

The tribunal found that Mr Langley had longstanding concerns about the claimant’s work output, availability during the working day, and flexi-time recording, and that the respondent had already made adjustments including home working, extra time for deadlines, reduced workload where possible, and review meetings. It accepted that the informal PIP introduced in August 2022 was an informal, supportive measure, not a disciplinary process, and that Mr Langley could have chosen a formal route but did not. The tribunal also found that management and HR were entitled to discuss the claimant’s situation without his knowledge, and that the claimant did not raise the alleged need to work from paper, or the need for a printer or second screen, at the time.

The section 26 harassment claim failed. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Langley had said the occupational health request was “insincere” or that he had alleged the claimant was falsifying flexi-time; it found those assertions were not proved on the evidence. It accepted that the claimant found the PIP and the laptop/homeworking comments unwelcome, but held that in the circumstances they were not reasonable to have the effect required for harassment. The tribunal also held that Jack Harvey’s comments on 27 January 2023 were made because of the claimant’s performance and the lack of engagement with support, not because of disability.

The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim and the reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal held that there was no proved unfavourable treatment in April 2022, no causal link between disability and the August 2022 PIP, no PCP that stress assessments were only collective or not done at all, no PCP preventing reduced workload or extended deadlines, and no reasonable adjustment case for extending sick pay beyond the contractual policy. It further held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant needed a printer or second screen. The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal was not persuaded that Mr Langley knew the claimant had done a protected act, or that his comments in September 2022 were because of any protected act. There was no monetary award.