Mrs J Haigh v Always Another Way, Cumbria Limited — 2023

Mrs J Haigh had admitted disabilities, including Ehlers Danlos syndrome and bipolar disorder, and her complaints arose out of her departure from Always Another Way, Cumbria Ltd and the winding down of her role. The tribunal found that the respondent's new manager, Andrea Sales, was introduced as the organisation grew and that many of the disputed steps were taken for operational, safeguarding or governance reasons rather than because of disability.

The tribunal rejected the factual basis for the first two discrimination-arising-from-disability complaints and a number of the direct discrimination allegations. It found that Ms Sales did not refuse to learn sign language or deliberately avoid eye contact, that the workspace issue arose from the way the organisation was using space alongside a lone-working policy, and that questions about iPads, the FC Scott funding bid, the HaighTech video project, the Christmas project, the class attendance, the photograph, the Facebook page and the collection of belongings were not shown to be because of disability. The allegation that the claimant had misused or misallocated about £3,000 was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

On limitation, early conciliation started on 19 April 2021, so complaints before 20 January 2021 were out of time unless they formed a continuing act or it was just and equitable to extend time. Applying the authorities it cited, including Lyfar, Hendricks and Adedeji, the tribunal held that allegations 1-8 were not part of a continuing course of conduct and refused to extend time. It also held that the reasonable adjustments complaints about sign language and eye contact were out of time, while the gym collection point complaint was in time but was not a PCP and, in any event, the respondent did not have the relevant knowledge of disadvantage.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the remaining direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and reasonable adjustments complaints. In its s.136 analysis, it concluded that the facts it accepted did not provide a sufficient basis to infer that the treatment complained of was because of disability, and it found that the harassment complaints lacked the necessary connection to disability. It described the case as reflecting an honestly held but misplaced belief that unlawful discrimination had occurred, rather than proof of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.