Mrs M Whalley v Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2020

Mrs M Whalley was employed by Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a Senior Occupational Therapist from 5 September 2016 until her resignation with notice took effect on 30 March 2020. She brought claims under sections 15, 19, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled by reason of dyslexia throughout and by Hashimoto's disease from 30 September 2019, and the hearing was conducted remotely before Employment Judge S Shore with Mrs L Taylor and Mr D Mockford as lay members.

The tribunal first dealt with time limits. It held that allegations before January 2019 were out of time and were background only, because they fell outside the ACAS early conciliation window and were not shown to be part of a continuing course of conduct or just and equitable to extend time. Allegations from January 2019 onwards were held to be in time as part of a continuing series of acts.

Applying Ishola v Transport for London and United First Partners Limited v Carreras, the tribunal rejected the claimant's pleaded PCPs as too vague and too specific to her own circumstances to show a state of affairs likely to be repeated. It found that the respondent had provided adequate administrative support, including preferential access to administrative staff and her own room; that the claimant was not required to complete significant data entry as alleged; that she was not required consistently to work more than 22.5 hours per week and had volunteered additional hours; that training formed part of the job description and CPD; that the role boundaries were not unclear or generic; and that the pleaded workplace stress risk assessment PCP was not made out.

On the section 15 claims, the tribunal described the pleading as circular and, applying T-System Ltd v Lewis, Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme, and Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe, held that the alleged unfavourable treatment was not shown to be because of something arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that the respondent did not complete a stress risk assessment and that this was unfavourable in an objective sense, but found that the failure did not arise in consequence of either disability. All claims were dismissed and the tribunal recorded that there would be no remedy hearing.