Ms N Griffiths v Essex County Council — 2023

The claimant was a CINRO employed by the respondent. After complaints were raised by managers in the Mid team, the tribunal found that the respondent did not handle the initial complaint transparently, did not give the claimant sufficient detail at an early stage, and conducted inquiries into her practice without properly involving her. The tribunal found that this caused the claimant stress and anxiety and that the respondent knew of her mental health vulnerability.

For indirect disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the alleged PCP requiring employees to remain in the same team pending a grievance, and rejected the complaint about not giving full complaint details as a PCP. It upheld the claim in relation to the practice of investigating an employee's practice without their knowledge or participation, finding that this placed employees with mental health disabilities, and the claimant in particular, at a particular disadvantage. The respondent did not show justification for that PCP.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found that the relevant PCP, requiring the claimant to continue in the same team pending her grievance, was not applied. The respondent had allowed work with another quadrant at times and had considered alternative management arrangements and redeployment.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that several matters cumulatively seriously damaged trust and confidence, including failures to give details of complaints, lack of supervision during a stressful period, the handling of the investigation outcome, refusal to provide the claimant with the complaint email, the March 2019 QA/supervision meeting, and the inadequate grievance process. The grievance appeal outcome was not itself a fundamental breach, but it did not remedy the earlier breach. The claimant resigned in response to the cumulative breach and had not affirmed the contract.