Mrs P Lal v Coalo Limited — 2026

Mrs P Lal worked for Coalo Limited as a Senior HR Advisor from 31 January 2022 until her dismissal on 8 September 2023. Coalo accepted that her epilepsy was a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal dismissed her claims of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure.

Several discrimination allegations concerned her line manager, Ashleigh Duncan, responding to a seizure on 20 July 2023. The tribunal found that Ms Duncan acted out of concern for Mrs Lal’s health and safety, contacting her husband and emergency services while first aiders assisted her. Removing her laptop was intended to prevent her from working at home. The tribunal found that Ms Duncan required medical clearance before her return, with the contemporaneous documents pointing to GP advice rather than a consultant’s report. It found no evidence that a non-disabled person in materially similar circumstances would have been treated more favourably.

Stuart Moodie sought occupational health advice because Mrs Lal had reported work-related stress that her GP fit note did not address. Her absence was treated as medical suspension on full contractual pay. Following an assessment on 26 July, the occupational health report dated 27 July said she was fit to return. The tribunal accepted that her return on Monday 31 July, rather than Friday 28 July, allowed time to consider the report and its recommendations. It also found that she received restructuring information and the job descriptions she requested after reporting difficulty opening them. These matters did not establish less favourable treatment or the alleged victimisation detriments.

The HR restructure had been approved in June 2023, and consultation began on 24 July. The tribunal accepted that existing and proposed roles had been compared for assimilation. Mrs Lal applied for Senior People Business Partner and People Advisor roles and was interviewed on 17 August. Candidates could not progress to the second assessment stage if they scored zero on any criterion; she received four zero scores. The tribunal accepted that she was assessed using the same methods as other candidates. Her failure to secure a role resulted from her assessment performance, and her dismissal was for redundancy rather than because of disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the alleged shortcomings did not establish a provision, criterion or practice within section 20. Applying Ishola v Transport for London, the tribunal treated them as allegations of individual unfair treatment rather than evidence of how similar cases were generally, or would be, handled. It also found that Ms Duncan followed the emergency plan by contacting Mrs Lal’s husband and emergency services, with first aiders providing assistance. The alleged breach of the plan and resulting substantial disadvantage were not established.