Mrs E C Beasley v The Rainbow Trust — 2020

Mrs E C Beasley worked for the Rainbow Trust as a family support worker from 12 September 2011 until her dismissal on 12 March 2020. The tribunal found that, at the material time from 3 April 2018, she was disabled by reason of pernicious anaemia and recurrent depression. It accepted that her pernicious anaemia was lifelong and that her depression was recurrent and likely to recur during the material period. The tribunal described the claimant as an unreliable witness of fact and, where there was conflict, preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and contemporaneous documents.

The tribunal rejected the pleaded age and disability discrimination allegations about the menopause enquiry, the alleged remark by GM, the 360-degree feedback, the time and motion study, and the email praising the North East team. It found that FW asked once only in a February 2018 wellbeing call whether the claimant's symptoms might be due to the menopause, that GM did not make the alleged comment, and that the feedback and time-and-motion exercise were management steps connected to performance and workload rather than disability. The tribunal also held that the claimant was asked to complete the time and motion study because her family contact hours were low, not because of disability.

On knowledge, the tribunal held that the respondent had actual knowledge of the claimant's pernicious anaemia throughout, but did not have actual knowledge of her depression until around 23 November 2018, when she sent her appeal letter referring to an anxiety-related disorder and cognitive effects. It rejected constructive knowledge before then, finding that the claimant was intensely private, did not disclose the longer history of depressive episodes, and described work and domestic pressures as the main causes of her symptoms when speaking to management. The tribunal found no failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the various pleaded PCPs, including contractual hours, verbal 360 feedback, the time and motion study, and the five-day appeal period; where adjustments were needed, the respondent had offered steps such as flexible working, a follow-up to the feedback, and a longer appeal time.

The tribunal also rejected the protected disclosure, health and safety disclosure, victimisation and detriment claims. It held that the September 2018 grievance did not amount to a protected disclosure because it did not contain sufficient information tending to show a legal breach or a health and safety risk, and that the claimant had not made a qualifying health and safety disclosure. The requests to reimburse personal fuel use and to return the company car were found to be driven by repayment of fuel incurred during sick leave and the need to make a vehicle available to a temporary worker, not by any protected act or disclosure. The complaint that ZB failed to correct the claimant's belief that she was a barrister was also dismissed.