Miss R Sahin v Tower Hamlets GP Care Group CIC — 2022

The tribunal accepted that Miss Sahin had epilepsy, Ehlers Danlos syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and that the respondent knew of those conditions. It found the claimant had been recruited as a social prescriber in July 2018 and that her induction with Ms Warraich was poorly organised, with unclear instructions and conflicting management. The tribunal also found that the claimant and Ms Warraich had a difficult working relationship, but it made findings on the evidence rather than on any general character assessment of either party.

On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal upheld complaints arising from the 13 August 2018 meeting and the later occupational health referrals. It found the meeting had been re-purposed to discuss epilepsy without warning, that the claimant was put under pressure to agree to colleagues being told about her epilepsy, and that restrictions were placed on her role which she had not previously understood would apply. It also found that the occupational health referral made on 23 August 2018 falsely represented her health conditions and was pursued in a way that suggested she was unfit for work. The tribunal did not uphold the motivational interview training point or the away-day risk assessment point as disability discrimination.

On harassment and victimisation, the tribunal upheld one disability-related harassment allegation, namely the 10 September 2018 email to Ms Kaur about the claimant's supposed non-disclosure to occupational health. It did not accept the other harassment allegations, including the grievance-meeting remark and the schedule-change and meeting-attendance allegations, as harassment. For victimisation, the tribunal held that the protected act was the claimant's 24 August 2018 email alleging disability discrimination. It found victimisation in the 19 September 2018 timetable changes and in the remark that the claimant and Ms Kaur were both black women, but rejected the other victimisation allegations.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the suggested PCPs based on Ms Warraich's management style and on a general requirement to work from home during induction. It found, however, that from 19 September 2018 the respondent applied a PCP requiring all administrative work to be done in a designated slot, which placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because she needed to pace work and take breaks to manage fatigue and pain. The tribunal held it would have been reasonable to distribute admin time through the working day and that the respondent failed to make that adjustment.

The claimant resigned on 11 October 2018. The tribunal found that the cumulative effect of the false occupational health referral, Mr Percival's role on the grievance panel, the grievance outcome and the schedule changes amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that those matters entitled her to resign. It also held that the dismissal was unlawful direct discrimination because part of the reason for it was the discriminatory conduct found earlier. The tribunal found the claims were in time, applying the continuing act principle and, if necessary, a just and equitable extension. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing and any preparation time order would be listed separately.