Ms E Hollindale v Atlas BFW Management Ltd — 2025

The claimant was accepted to be disabled by reason of bipolar disorder, and the tribunal also found that the evidence established disability by reason of complex trauma, although it considered the two labels largely described the same constellation of symptoms. The respondent knew of the bipolar diagnosis at the material times. The claimant withdrew her section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint on day one of the final hearing, and that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.

The reasonable adjustments claim was advanced through a Scott Schedule. The tribunal held that the requests for a wellness action plan and a stress risk assessment were, in substance, consultation-type measures rather than auxiliary services, and that their absence did not itself establish a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It also found that the claimant had not proved a PCP requiring her to work throughout the day without short or flexible breaks; on the evidence, she was a senior manager with autonomy and could take breaks. The tribunal likewise rejected the case that the respondent had failed to provide regular support meetings, because it found that weekly one-to-ones with Mr Webster were in place and could address the claimant's concerns.

Several requested adjustments were withdrawn, including the complaints about appointments and treatment time, a disability support worker/advocate, a workplace buddy, Wednesdays as a non-working day, advance warning of meetings, and being given the opportunity to ask questions and prepare responses. The tribunal also found that the claimant already worked in a hybrid pattern and was able to work from home one day a week, that the respondent was already acting on behavioural concerns through meetings and Boo Coaching, and that the issues about job description, workload, clear instructions and weekly supervision were either being addressed or were not made out on the facts.

On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It noted that the claimant resigned while the respondent was still in the process of implementing some of the measures discussed with her, and before the planned follow-up meeting could take place. All remaining claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.