Claimant v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Ms M S V Williamson — 2024

The claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager at Band 8A and the respondent accepted that she was a disabled person during her employment. The dispute arose in the context of the Government’s proposed Vaccination as a Condition of Deployment guidance in late 2021 and the respondent’s attempt to assess whether the claimant’s role fell within scope. The tribunal found that the claimant’s role was non-patient facing before the pandemic, but that the respondent later treated it as ancillary to CQC-regulated activity because, if she attended site, face-to-face contact with service users could arise. It also recorded that the Government later announced on 31 January 2022 that the draft legislation was being reconsidered and employers should not take action pending that reconsideration.

The direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability claims failed. The tribunal held that the December 2021 emails and letters did not threaten dismissal or otherwise put the claimant at a disadvantage in the way she alleged. It also found that the refusal to let her participate in facilitated conversations and the refusal to allow attendance at reverse mentoring training were not less favourable treatment or unfavourable treatment: the tribunal considered those steps were taken to protect the claimant and others. The tribunal further held that comments about her capability were not unfounded because the claimant herself accepted that she needed adjustments in order to perform all aspects of the role.

The tribunal rejected the indirect philosophical belief claim because it found that the claimant did not hold the protected philosophical belief of Humanism. In its reasons, the tribunal said her evidence and correspondence did not fit the Amsterdam Declaration or the Humanist UK position it had considered, and it concluded that her expressed views were incompatible with the requirements of a protected Humanist belief. On the indirect disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved group disadvantage for the PCPs pleaded, including the requirement to disclose vaccination status and the requirements relating to liaising with internal stakeholders and attending face-to-face training.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that there was a PCP requiring a Business Development Manager to liaise and meet with a wide and unlimited variety of internal stakeholders and that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage once the respondent knew of the issue. It found that the respondent knew of the disability from August 2019 and knew of the substantial disadvantage by June and July 2022. However, it held that the respondent took reasonable steps in the circumstances, including allocating work away from certain individuals, offering facilitated conversations, and rejecting adjustments that it considered unworkable on the facts before it. The reasonable adjustments claim was therefore dismissed.