Dr Z Fitzgerald v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

The claimant, a Consultant Psychiatrist with bipolar disorder, brought claims arising from matters between 2017 and May 2020, including the ending of his Lead Consultant responsibilities, workload and job planning, sickness absence management, office allocation, consultant meetings, and alleged comments or conduct by managers. The Tribunal accepted that bipolar disorder was a disability and that the respondent knew of it.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability claims. It found the claimant had not been excluded from consultant meetings, was not excluded from reappointment to the Lead Consultant role, and was not subjected to unfavourable treatment by the office move because it was arranged after he sought an office with a window. It accepted that ending the Lead Consultant role and arranging a final sickness absence meeting were unfavourable and connected to disability-related matters, but found each was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims concerning workload, occupational health advice, sickness absence management, and employee health.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found the workload PCP placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but the respondent had removed responsibility for covering absent colleagues and had agreed a reduction to one ten-bedded ward by January 2018, later agreeing the claimant's preferred PICU ward. It found no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments on the pleaded basis.

The direct disability discrimination and harassment claims were also dismissed. The Tribunal found the workload and Lead Consultant decisions were not because of disability itself, and that the alleged harassment either was not proved, did not have the statutory purpose or reasonable effect, or was not related to disability. It also found that, apart from the office move, the November 2019 letter, and the December 2019 meeting, the claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The victimisation claims were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal.