Mrs P Haddock v The University of Chester — 2021

The claimant, Mrs P Haddock, was accepted as disabled by reference to hypothyroidism and anxiety/depression. At the final hearing she pursued direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and victimisation; her unfair dismissal, breach of contract, whistleblowing, reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination and harassment claims were withdrawn. The remaining alleged acts were an alleged failure to investigate complaints raised on 4 June 2019 and the dismissal on 10 July 2019.

For victimisation, the claimant relied on a reported incident involving comments about a colleague being 'bipolar', referred to as the 'Emma Incident'. The tribunal found she had not mentioned that incident in the 4 June 2019 meeting, and that this account was not supported by her written statements, the meeting notes, her grievance, her appeal, her diary entries, her claim form or the earlier case management material. It therefore found that the protected act was not proved and dismissed the victimisation claim.

On the alleged failure to investigate, the tribunal found that the claimant had agreed to and participated in an informal route, including mediation, and had obtained the apology she wanted. She said in cross-examination that she expected only a follow-up meeting, not a further formal investigation. The respondent's Dignity and Respect Policy expressly contemplated informal resolution and mediation, and the tribunal found the absence of a formal investigation was a consequence of the informal process chosen by the claimant rather than anything connected with disability.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant was dismissed because of ongoing tension and disruption in the team, and that the dismissal was accelerated before she reached two years' service so that the respondent could act before unfair dismissal rights arose. It preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses as consistent with the contemporaneous documentation. Even if there had been disruptive behaviour, the tribunal did not find it arose from disability; on the claimant's own account, her disability mainly caused withdrawal, unresponsiveness, lethargy and anxiety, which did not explain the conduct relied on by the respondent. The direct discrimination and section 15 claims were therefore dismissed.