Claimant v Peers v Secretary of State for Justice — 2024

The claimant began work as an EO Crown Court Clerk on 12 July 2021 on a fixed-term contract. Her unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed on withdrawal at a case management hearing in October 2022 because she had less than two years' service, so the final hearing concerned disability discrimination only. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about her probationary reviews, repeated performance concerns, and the appeal outcome, which was issued after the appeal hearing on 13 May 2022.

The tribunal's primary finding was that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had a disability at the relevant times. The claimant had historic anxiety and depression, but on recruitment she said she did not have a disability and did not need adjustments. When she later told Ms Rosindale that the office noise made her anxious, Ms Rosindale asked about anxiety and medication and the claimant said she was fine and was not on medication. During the employment she linked difficulties to particular colleagues, pressure, and the grievance process, and her absences were recorded as COVID and migraine rather than anxiety or depression. The tribunal therefore held that the section 15 and reasonable adjustments claims failed for want of knowledge.

In alternative reasoning, the tribunal found no sufficient causal link between any disability and the claimant's underperformance. It accepted that the role of Crown Court Clerk required accurate real-time recording and that the claimant made repeated errors over an extended probationary period, including mistakes in logs, orders, sentences, jury administration, and disposals. The tribunal found that the respondent had extended probation twice, given her preferred trainers, lighter lists, remote support, and opportunities to work from the court room or back office, but she still did not meet the required standard. On that basis, dismissal and the rejection of the appeal were held to be proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims relating to court operation, performance standards, service delivery, and use of public resources.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal identified a performance-related PCP but held that several of the alleged failures were out of time, including the requests to work permanently from court or from a back office and the failure to investigate verbal bullying allegations; it would not have extended time for those complaints. It went on to find that the proposed adjustments were not reasonable or effective in any event, including reducing scrutiny, reducing workload or complexity, extending probation again, moving the claimant to another court, and referring her to OH/EAP. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments failed.