In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant was employed as a Physician Associate from 22 November 2021 until she resigned with immediate effect on 30 January 2023. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 from at least April 2022. In spring 2022 she was moved into a desk-based CMDU role and, in June 2022, she said she wanted to reduce her hours from 22.5 to 15 per week. The tribunal found that the reduction process was started because of that request, not because of her disability, and that the later notification of the change on 4 September 2022 was not linked to her surgery or her absence. The tribunal also found that the new part-time PA recruited for November or December 2022 was not recruited to replace the claimant but to work with her.

The reasonable adjustments and disability discrimination claims failed. On the equipment point, the tribunal found that the alleged PCP was really a description of the treatment complained of, that there was no evidence of other staff being treated differently in the relevant way, and that the failure to supply a laptop and card reader for the first few days of homeworking was short-lived and not because of disability. The claimant had not asked for a chair or the other aids she later mentioned when she was specifically asked what equipment she needed. The tribunal held that the comments made at the 24 November 2022 return-to-work meeting, including discussion of future desk-based work and possible alternatives if the CMDU role ended, were not unfavourable treatment within s.15 and were not made because of the absence from 31 August 2022. It also found that the alleged fourth basis for the s.15 claim, that another person had been employed on the claimant's contract, did not occur.

The harassment claim also failed on each alleged incident. The tribunal held that the repeated emails to the claimant's private email address were unwanted but were not related to disability and did not have the required purpose or effect. It found that Ms Shapcott's approach to the claimant on 16 December 2022 about the grievance was unwanted conduct but was not related to disability, and that the claimant's account of 'bad looks' was not made out. The tribunal found that some of the claimant's complaints arose from her interpretation of events after the fact and that contemporaneous documents were a more reliable guide to what was said.

The tribunal criticised aspects of the grievance handling, including delay and a lack of urgency by Mr Loasby, but found that this did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. It held that the claimant resigned because the respondent would not discipline Ms Shapcott, and that there was no basis for disciplinary action on the evidence before the tribunal. The claim for notice monies therefore failed and all claims were dismissed.