In Person v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal dismissed constructive unfair dismissal, harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, and the reasonable adjustments complaint. It found the claimant was disabled by depression and anxiety and that the respondent knew this, but it preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, whom it found honest and supportive, over the claimant's account, which it found unsafe and incredible. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had repeatedly supported the claimant through occupational health referrals, homeworking, special leave, taxis and redeployment efforts.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the respondent operated a PCP requiring staff to attend an office to resolve smartcard problems and that, if too unwell to attend, they would be recorded as sick. It found that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of his anxiety and depression, but held that the proposed adjustments were not reasonable. Sending a smartcard by recorded delivery raised data protection and security issues, working from home was already permitted, and treating the absence as special leave would have masked sickness contrary to the respondent's policy.

The harassment and direct discrimination claims failed because the tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that Ms Mercuriadi said on 4 November 2021 that the department had done a lot for him and that it was not their fault his brain did not work. It preferred Ms Mercuriadi's account and found those comments were not made. On that basis, there was no proved unwanted conduct related to disability and no proved less favourable treatment because of disability.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal examined the alleged acts said to amount to a breach of trust and confidence, including the first and final written warnings for attendance, the handling of redeployment, the smartcard attendance requests, the log-on/off and screen-share monitoring, refusal of ad hoc flexi leave, the grievance timing, and the alleged text message. It found each complained-of act was either not proved or was done with reasonable and proper cause. The tribunal held that the alleged final straw events added nothing under Omilaju, and that the resignation letter of 21 February 2022 did not identify the specific later incidents relied on at the hearing. There was therefore no repudiatory breach and the constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.