Ms D Robson v Mayborn (UK) Ltd — 2020

The claimant, Ms D Robson, worked for Mayborn (UK) Ltd from June 2015 and resigned on 10 July 2020. The tribunal found her to be an unreliable witness of fact and preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where there was conflict. The claimant withdrew the failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination claims, which were dismissed on withdrawal.

Applying s.6 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had proved that she suffered from the mental impairment of autism. It accepted that some of the matters she described were capable of being consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, but found that the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The tribunal relied on the claimant's ability to socialise and initiate social contact, the limited weight it attached to the private psychiatric report because the expert was not called, and the Occupational Health evidence from Dr O'Reilly, which indicated at most that she might be mildly on the spectrum and did not require adjustments. It also held that the respondent did not have actual knowledge of a disability and was not reasonably expected to know of one during employment.

The direct sex discrimination and harassment claims failed. On the 'bird seed' allegations, the tribunal found that the joke about sweets on CB's desk was initiated by the claimant and became a team joke with her participation, so it was not treatment because of sex. It found that the Christmas 'bird tray' gift was a personal gift, not a team gift, and did not amount to sex-related harassment or discrimination. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaints about career progression, the Product Integrity Manager role, and the later restructuring of her job title and role, finding that she knew the engineering role required qualifications and that CB had not promised her a promotion or a new department.

The tribunal dismissed the disability-related harassment and victimisation claims. It found that many of the later complaints concerned ordinary management steps, grievance handling, or disciplinary action taken with reasonable and proper cause, including the Oracle access issue, the stakeholder meeting, the CM management queries, the audits, the Porcupine folder issue, the MAPS feedback process, the grievance investigation, the disciplinary warning over the text message to CB, and the later return-to-work and suspension issues. It held that earlier acts could not have been motivated by a protected act that had not yet occurred, and that later grievance and disciplinary decisions were not shown to have been taken because of the grievance.

On unfair constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied the principles in Western Excavating, Malik and Omilaju and held that the claimant had not established a repudiatory breach or a breach of trust and confidence. The only factual complaint it accepted was the omission of written MAPS feedback, but it found that this did not show that the respondent no longer intended to be bound by the contract and was not a fundamental breach. The claimant resigned before the later disciplinary process was completed, and the tribunal found that she resigned to avoid potential dismissal rather than in response to a repudiatory breach. No remedy was awarded.