Ms Y Omar v Brampton Manor Trust — 2021

The claimant, Ms Y Omar, was accepted to be disabled by reason of multiple sclerosis. The tribunal held that the complaints formed a continuing act from 3 September 2018 to July 2019, so time was extended on a just and equitable basis. It relied on the fact that the same managers were involved throughout, the issues were repeated across the employment, and the claimant was in her first teaching post and was focused on completing her NQT year while coming to terms with a life-changing condition.

On 3 September 2018, the claimant asked to leave the INSET day early for an urgent blood test so that she could obtain MS medication. Mr Balaam refused the request and told her to think carefully about whether she wanted MS on her employment record. The tribunal also found that Stage I of the absence management procedure was triggered after one day's sickness absence, before the policy threshold, and that Mr Roberts later set her a target of no further absences even after she explained that her condition could flare up. It found that the respondent also refused her request to be removed from break duty and that the suggested alternatives, such as doing break duty in the library or quad, were not a real adjustment for the symptoms she had described.

The tribunal found that the respondent repeatedly treated the claimant's disability-related absence and treatment as if it were separate from her health. It held that the Stage II process was triggered, then brought forward when the claimant had asked for postponement; that the phased return told to her by Ms Qureshi on 19 December 2018 was cancelled when she returned on 7 January 2019; that she was observed while recovering from a relapse; that her request on 24 February 2019 for a reduced timetable was effectively ignored; and that she was placed on performance management without the respondent properly considering the impact of MS, steroid treatment and relapse on her performance. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not refer her to occupational health until March 2019, despite having opportunities to do so earlier.

The tribunal upheld discrimination arising from disability and indirect discrimination. It found that the claimant's sickness absence, fatigue and hospital attendance arose in consequence of MS, and that the treatment she complained of was because of those consequences. It accepted the school's aims of maintaining attendance and standards for pupils, but held that the means chosen were not proportionate under the authorities it cited, including Bilka-Kaufhaus, Homer and Allonby. The PCPs found discriminatory included the attendance requirement for hospital appointments outside work hours, the AMP triggers, the break-duty requirement, the requirement to return on a full timetable, the observation regime, the cover-work requirement and the threats of Stage III and disciplinary action.