Ms Helene Corlett v Halton Borough Council — 2021

Ms Helene Corlett worked for Halton Borough Council as a Trading Standards Officer from 1 September 2014 until 25 May 2019. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, anxiety and panic attacks. During the hearing the claims of direct discrimination, harassment, holiday pay and breach of contract were withdrawn and dismissed, leaving the reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal claims for determination.

The discrimination arising from disability claim failed. The tribunal found that the treatment complained of in relation to the classification of leave in October 2018 did not amount to unfavourable treatment, that the 14 December 2018 refusal to approve reduced hours at that stage was justified by staffing pressures and the absence of sufficiently clear medical evidence, and that the 22 January 2019 refusal by Ms Perchard to meet the claimant about workload arose from Ms Perchard's own upset with management and HR rather than from the claimant's disability-related absence or communication style.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded in part. The tribunal held that the respondent should have considered reduced hours once the Occupational Health report was received on 2 or 3 January 2019, and that it should have allowed a phased return to work in late October and November 2018 despite its policy. It also held that refusing to allow the claimant's husband to accompany her to the April 2019 meeting was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Other requested steps, including converting annual leave to parental leave, changing time off after therapy, requiring empathetic responses, and mediation, were rejected.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the failures concerning reduced hours and a phased return were breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence and were part of the reason Ms Corlett resigned on 26 March 2019 with notice. It rejected the respondent's argument that she had affirmed the contract by resigning on notice, held that she had been dismissed constructively within section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and found the dismissal unfair under section 98. Remedy was left to a later hearing.