Ms M Gomes Resende v Aecom Limited — 2020

Ms Gomes Resende worked for Aecom Limited as a Senior Project Manager from January 2018 until her dismissal on 27 July 2018. The tribunal accepted that she had Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and held that it satisfied the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. It found that the Respondent's knowledge of the condition developed over time through the Claimant's emails, the special risk assessment and the discussions in April and July 2018, but that the Claimant did not fully disclose the extent of her condition at recruitment and would not allow a meaningful occupational health assessment.

On the direct disability discrimination allegations, the tribunal applied section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the burden of proof principles in Igen, Madarassy and Hewage. It rejected the specific allegations that Ms Caton or Mr Lickfold made the comments alleged by the Claimant, or treated her in the ways she alleged, including the alleged remarks at the 17 April 2018 meeting and the suggestion that she be placed in an isolated area. The tribunal found that the back-to-back probation and risk-assessment meetings were sensible given Ms Caton's working pattern, and that the dismissal decision was based on performance, conduct and probation concerns, not on disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the alleged PCPs, including permitting fragrances in the open plan office and requiring office-based working, were shown to put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. Applying the section 20 and Schedule 8 Equality Act framework and the Latif guidance, it held that the Claimant had not established the needed disadvantage, and in any event the suggested adjustments were not reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal relied in particular on the Claimant's refusal to permit a full occupational health referral and the absence of medical evidence supporting the extent of the claimed adjustments.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal held that only the grievance sent on 3 July 2018 amounted to a protected act. It found that the earlier emails about chemicals and working from home did not amount to protected acts, and that the later warning that she may be dismissed on 24 July 2018 and the dismissal on 27 July 2018 were not because of the grievance. The judgment therefore dismissed all claims and recorded no monetary award.