Mrs K Kulasooriya v The Secretary of State for Justice FINAL HEARING — 2022

The claimant, a disabled employee because of generalised anxiety disorder, brought complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment arising from HMCTS work on magistrates' expenses claims. The tribunal accepted that reasonable adjustments were already in place, including that she was not required to use the telephone, and that the claim turned on a narrow set of events between April and July 2022.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal rejected each alleged PCP. It held that the delayed communication of the 14 April 2022 amnesty was a one-off communication failure rather than a PCP, and in any event found no comparative substantial disadvantage because the amnesty itself was the main source of stress and anxiety. It also found no actual or constructive knowledge of any relevant disadvantage, and held that any proposed adjustment based on telling the claimant earlier could not be made retrospectively. The tribunal further found that the respondent did not require the claimant to clear all of the backlog alone, did not impose a PCP by giving short notice that the 16 June 2022 meeting would be formal, did not offer roles on the basis that she would have to use the telephone, and did not require her to complete all remaining claims or identify issues in each claim as alleged. The tribunal said the respondent's only requirement was that she do her normal hours and pace, and do as much as she reasonably could.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal considered two remarks said to have been made by Mrs Davies at the 14 July 2022 meeting. It found that the remarks did not relate to disability, that Mrs Davies did not know or ought reasonably to have known they would exacerbate the claimant's condition, and that the statutory purpose/effect test was not met. The tribunal dismissed the harassment complaints and expressly said they were totally without merit. No monetary award was made. It also noted that, although the reasonable adjustments complaints failed, it was not persuaded they were totally without merit; it considered the harassment complaints in a different category and found only those to be totally without merit.