Mrs C Mattis v Mr D Parish — 2024

Mrs C Mattis started work for Mr D Parish on 4 June 2018 as a Paraplanner/New Business Administrator. After a road traffic accident on 31 May 2021, the respondent bought her a laptop, continued to pay her full pay during sickness, and later made a number of adjustments to support her return. The claimant accepted that her physical impairment amounted to a disability; her mental impairment was not pursued at the hearing. She withdrew the indirect disability discrimination complaint during day 2 of the liability hearing.

The tribunal rejected the harassment allegation arising from the 9 February 2023 discussion about the chair. It found that the comments identified in the list of issues were part of a conversation about how to use an ergonomic chair, that they were not made in a derogatory way, and that they did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010. The reasonable adjustments complaint also failed. The tribunal found no PCP requiring employees generally, or the claimant in particular, to be physically present in the office during working hours or on Mondays, and it found that any disadvantage said to arise from Monday attendance was not made out on the evidence. It also found that the headset and sit-to-stand workstation had already been provided, and that the footrest, wrist rest and laptop riser were ordered and available by 7 February 2023. On the chair issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had said she would arrange an ergonomic assessment but had not done so, and it held that the respondent was entitled to wait for that assessment rather than immediately replace the chair.

The tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability complaint for similar reasons. It was not satisfied that there was a need for occupational health advice arising in consequence of disability, that office attendance on Mondays after PARS classes was itself the relevant difficulty, or that the alleged need for a specially adapted chair, homeworking or a longer phased return had been shown to arise in consequence of disability. The tribunal also found that the respondent was flexible about the claimant’s rehabilitation classes and did not exclude her from weekly administration meetings. In relation to wages, it found that at the 20 December 2022 meeting the claimant was told her pay would reduce to reflect the 6 hours per working day she was then working, and that she continued to work on that basis without objection. The tribunal held that there was an implied agreement to pay 75% of salary for 75% of hours worked, so there was no unlawful deduction from wages.

The constructive dismissal claim failed. The tribunal held that the reduction in pay reflected hours worked and did not amount to a breach of contract, that the absence of a DSE assessment did not contribute to a repudiatory breach in context, that the expectation that she attend the office on two days per week including Mondays was a lawful instruction, and that the grievance point did not rest with the respondent because the claimant had not raised the grievance with him. Looking at the relationship as a whole, the tribunal found no conduct that, objectively, destroyed or seriously damaged trust and confidence. It also found, in the alternative, that the claimant resigned because the disciplinary investigation into her conduct had commenced after the compliance concerns were raised, rather than because of the matters she relied on in the claim. No claim succeeded and no award was made.