Miss L Edmondson v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025

The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of a cancer diagnosis. The tribunal found that after the claimant began anticoagulant medication she was placed on restricted duties, retained her pay uplift, and was later supported through searches for alternative non-operational roles. It accepted that the respondent knew of the cancer diagnosis from late March 2023 and that the claimant experienced fatigue and distress, but did not accept that she had communicated the pressure of the Safer Custody Manager role as explicitly or persistently as she alleged.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that requiring Safer Custody Custodial Managers to work from HMP Frankland placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but that the respondent did not know or ought not reasonably to have known the full nature and extent of that disadvantage at the relevant time. It found that flexibility over working hours was a reasonable adjustment, that the Safer Custody role could not feasibly be done remotely, and that delays in providing home working equipment did not amount to unreasonable delay in the circumstances. Other reasonable adjustment complaints failed because the relevant PCP was not applied, the proposed adjustment was not reasonable, the vacancy did not become live, or the claimant accepted the alleged requirement was not applied to her.

For the s15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the sickness absence arose in consequence of disability but held that attendance at Formal Absence Review Meetings was not unfavourable treatment. It described the meetings as supportive, collaborative, and aimed at considering wellbeing, progress, alternative roles, and continuation of restricted duties. If that conclusion was wrong, the tribunal found the process would have been a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

For harassment, the tribunal accepted that the claimant perceived herself as unsupported after learning that the People Hub role had been filled. Looking objectively, it found that the respondent made efforts to support her continued employment, including keeping in contact, allowing flexibility, exploring alternative roles, taking HR and workplace adjustment advice, extending restricted duties, and arranging a secondment. The harassment complaint was therefore dismissed.