Mr R Downey, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimants, Ms and Mr Parsons, brought fresh Equality Act claims after earlier tribunal proceedings had been settled by a COT3 on 19 January 2021. The tribunal treated the current case as turning on disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation issues arising after that settlement, and excluded passages about pre-COT3 allegations against Ms Bromley as insufficiently relevant to the pleaded issues before it.

The tribunal accepted that Mrs Parsons was disabled by reason of dyslexia, PTSD, endometriosis, asthma and back injury/pain, and that Mr Parsons was disabled by reason of PTSD and back injury/pain. It did not accept that Mrs Parsons was disabled by dyspraxia for Equality Act purposes, or that Mr Parsons was disabled by iGA nephropathy or alpha1 antitrypsin deficiency. The tribunal also noted the COT3 terms, including the shared-line provision if the claimants completed their paramedic qualifications, and the evidence that they were later placed on stand-down while remaining on full pay because they were not ready to return to work.

On the direct, indirect, reasonable-adjustments and s.15 claims, the tribunal found that the core complaints were not made out. It held that the claimants were not treated less favourably by not being given a fixed line until they were ready to return, because a non-disabled comparator in the same position would have been treated the same way. It found that project work was not available to them in suitable form, that the interview changes and access-pass issue were one-off matters or oversights, and that the section 2 change to unsocial-hours payments flowed from Agenda for Change and applied to other staff in the same position, not from disability or protected acts. The tribunal also found that the annual-leave expectation during management stand-down was a PCP, but not one that placed the claimants at a relevant disadvantage, and that in any event it would have been justified.

The harassment findings were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the 31 August 2022 encounter with Ms Kitchen was an innocuous and brief exchange with a busy manager who did not know the full context, that Ms Stephenson did not accuse the claimants of not wanting to return to work, and that Mr Abell's warning about the tone of Mrs Parsons' emails was not unreasonable in context. It accepted that the WhatsApp comments about fibromyalgia and related disabilities were inappropriate, but found they were not directed at the claimants and that the respondent did take action by removing and investigating the posts.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted the claimants' prior grievances and tribunal claims were protected acts, but concluded that the delays in grievance handling and return-to-work planning were explained by the COT3 issues, the counter-fraud investigation, HR resourcing, and the complexity of the return-to-practice process. It found that the alleged detriments were not because of the protected acts. The final result was that all complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.