Ms A Rosu v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that, at the relevant time around 27 September 2021, the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that she had a spinal injury following a road traffic accident, that the impairment had more than a minor effect on normal day-to-day activities, and that at the relevant time it could well last at least 12 months.

The tribunal found that the Senior Buyer secondment had been offered for six months as a development opportunity without a competitive process, and that extensions of such secondments were very rare. It accepted that there had been lack of clarity in communications, but found that the secondment ended and was not extended for business reasons connected with the review of the Pre-Contract Services team, headcount, budget and the respondent's preference for flexibility including use of contractors. The direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability claims were therefore dismissed.

The claimant's grievance of 4 October 2021 was accepted to be a protected act. The tribunal found that Mr Holmes' comments about the grievance amounted to a detriment, but that he did not know the grievance alleged disability discrimination and did not make the comments because of a protected act. It also found that the Commercial Manager role was not pursued as a soft launch secondment because it was a 12-month role requiring advertisement and a formal recruitment process, not because of the protected act. The remaining victimisation claims were dismissed.