Mr Michael Stevens v Secretary of State for Education — 2020

Mr Stevens worked for the Secretary of State for Education and resigned on 29 March 2019 after being issued with a first formal warning. The warning followed the loss of a work laptop and other items after a work training day on 24 July 2018, and a later incident in which his work mobile phone and personal phone were stolen. The tribunal found that Mr Stevens had not been dishonest in either incident, but that he had not taken reasonable care of the laptop in the first incident and had not accurately reported the loss in a timely manner.

The unfair constructive dismissal claim failed. Applying the authorities on constructive dismissal and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal found no breach of contract by the respondent. It found that the respondent was entitled to revisit the first incident after the second incident and after later information was received about the recovery of the lost bag, that the Fair Processing Notice was not a breach, and that the delay in the disciplinary process was not significant enough to amount to a contractual breach.

The claimant withdrew his direct sexual orientation discrimination claim and his victimisation claim, and those claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the remaining disability-related indirect discrimination and harassment complaints, which were otherwise out of time.

The disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that Mr Stevens did not have a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time. It also found that the respondent did not apply the pleaded PCPs of having three consideration points for the same equipment-loss incident or of applying a long, drawn-out process. The harassment claim based on seven telephone calls during four weeks of sickness absence also failed; the tribunal found the calls were appropriate management contact and, even if considered excessive, fell well short of harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010. No remedy award was made.