Judy Hansen v Durham County Council — 2022

The claimant, a social worker employed by Durham County Council, was accepted to be disabled from April 2016 by reason of ME and chronic fatigue syndrome. The tribunal found that after changes at the Seaham centre, including the arrival of Lifeline, the working environment became busier and there were tensions about the claimant's visibility and availability. It found that there was poor management communication and inadequate handover of existing arrangements, but that Mr Walton did not refuse the claimant permission to work from home when needed and did not require prior approval on each occasion; the claimant continued to work from home provided she notified management or centre staff of her whereabouts.

The section 15 disability discrimination complaints based on alleged refusal of home working and alleged failure to follow occupational health advice were dismissed because the alleged unfavourable treatment was not established. The reasonable adjustments complaint was also dismissed: although the tribunal considered the requirements to work from the respondent's place of business and undertake the role could place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, it found that the respondent had not refused the suggested adjustment of working from home when required and had not failed to follow occupational health advice in that respect.

Further Equality Act complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that Pat Rich made an unwanted passing comment in March 2019 about preparing for the tribunal proceedings during her holiday, but that it was not reasonable for the comment to have the proscribed harassment effect, it was not a detriment for victimisation, and it was out of time with no just and equitable extension. The delay in implementing Access to Work software and training was found to amount to unfavourable treatment from the point the claimant had the relevant NHS laptop, but it was caused by Trust systems, ID-profile issues, and a funding mistake, not by something arising from disability or by protected acts. Complaints about referral to a long-term attendance management hearing, failure to obtain a further report from Dr Wynn, and failure to redeploy were also dismissed, with the tribunal finding no victimisation and, where section 15 was engaged, justification or no causal link to disability.

The dismissal complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of ongoing and anticipated absence arising partly from disability, but found dismissal objectively justified by legitimate aims including regular and effective service and the need not to keep the claimant's substantive post or temporary over-establishment placements open indefinitely. The victimisation claim about dismissal was also dismissed because Mr Emberson's decision was not influenced by protected acts.