Mr Aggrey-Orleans (Counsel) For the v Mr Joshi (Tribunal Advocate) — 2023

The claimant, who had Crohn's disease, was employed by the first respondent in an administration and management role. The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled and that both respondents knew of her disability. It did not find that the claimant had been dismissed, but found that the second respondent's messages about needing to chart a different path and mooting part-time work were proven.

For direct disability discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondents treated the claimant less favourably because of her disability. It found that the respondents had not proved a non-discriminatory explanation and noted the limited discussion or investigation of the claimant's condition or possible measures to support her at work.

For discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found that the messages about changing the claimant's working arrangements were unfavourable treatment because of absence for Infliximab treatment, which arose from her disability. The tribunal found that the respondents had not shown the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The disability harassment claim was dismissed because, although the incidents occurred and most were unwanted conduct related to disability, the tribunal did not find that they had the purpose or effect required for harassment.