Miss K. Almutairi v Booking.com Customer Service Centre (UK) Limited — 2019

This was a liability-only disability discrimination hearing concerning events between September 2017 and April 2018. The tribunal held that complaints before 13 November 2017, when line management passed from Mr Ashwell to Ms Westwood, were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time for them. The later complaints during Ms Westwood’s management were treated as being in time on the basis of conduct extending over a period. The victimisation claim was withdrawn and recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.

The respondent conceded that the claimant’s depression, anxiety and ADHD were disabilities, and the tribunal found that the respondent had actual knowledge of those impairments from 6 August 2017. The claimant did not prove that her gastric disorder met the Equality Act definition of disability on the basis advanced at the hearing, because the tribunal was not satisfied that she experienced diarrhoea and vomiting every time she ate, or that any such effects were long term.

On the merits, the tribunal rejected the s.15 claim. It found that Ms Bedford did not refuse to amend the claimant’s calls-per-hour target on 6 April 2018, because the question of further adjustment was left open pending occupational health input. It also found that the January 2018 disciplinary process was triggered by an absence for jaw pain and other lateness/absence matters that did not arise in consequence of disability.

The reasonable-adjustments claim failed. The punctuality requirement did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, the absence criteria did so only in relation to disability-related absence but Ms Westwood had already disregarded the one absence connected with the claimant’s mental health, and the claimant did not prove that the CPH target of 6 created a substantial disadvantage in the relevant period. The indirect discrimination claim also failed: the punctuality requirement did not disadvantage the claimant, the absence criteria were justified by customer-service and workload aims, and Ms Westwood was not applying the same fixed 6.5 CPH target to the claimant in the Westwood period.

The harassment claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the warnings, the PIP, or the disciplinary steps were related to disability, and in any event they did not meet the statutory threshold for harassment. The alleged delay in implementing the move to day shifts was part of the pre-13 November 2017 period, which the tribunal held was out of time. No remedy was awarded.