Miss L Hyland v Manchester City Council — 2023

The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant was disabled at the relevant time by reason of anxiety disorder and non-organic psychosis. The claims determined were two claims under section 15 Equality Act 2010 and one claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010.

On the refusal to interview for the Etrop Court Business Support Officer role, the tribunal accepted that not being selected for interview was unfavourable treatment. It found, however, that the reason for the decision was that the claimant's anonymised baseline did not provide sufficient evidence of the skills required for the post. Although Ms Fallows' recollection was poor and her email contained errors, the tribunal found those matters did not establish that absence arising from disability was the reason for the refusal.

On dismissal, the tribunal found the claimant had been unable to carry out her substantive support worker role for many years, had been placed in temporary supernumerary roles, and had been through an extended MPeople redeployment process without securing a permanent alternative post. The tribunal found there was no satisfactory evidence that occupational health recommendations had not been followed or that further adjustments had been identified which would have enabled a return to work. It held that dismissal was justified in light of the impact of continuing agency cover on service continuity and cost, and noted that the claimant did not want to continue in the respondent's employment.

On the direct discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the letter referring to gross misconduct and a disciplinary hearing was sent because Mr Considine used the wrong template and prepared the letter carelessly. It was not satisfied that a non-disabled comparator would have been treated differently, and it found no basis to infer that the mistake was because of disability.