Mr R Holland, direct access barrister For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant returned to the respondent as Finance and IT Director on a salary of £87,500 and was diagnosed with relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma on 14 February 2022. The tribunal found that cancer was a deemed disability and that the respondent reacted initially with support. It found that, on 18 February 2022, the respondent offered enhanced sick pay and separately agreed that the claimant could work when able, with no obligation on him to do so.

The tribunal held that the 29 March 2022 letter was an unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability because it set out a future sick pay position that could reduce the claimant's second-year entitlement after the enhanced sick pay he had received in year 1. It accepted that the wording was difficult to understand and that the respondent had not intended the claimant to lose all second-year entitlement, but it found the letter was still not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's aims. By contrast, the direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the reason was not disability itself and that a hypothetical comparator in materially similar circumstances would have been treated the same.

The tribunal also found that the 28 November 2022 pay review refusal was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability. It accepted that RB's reasoning included matters directly connected with the claimant's cancer-related absence, including that he had only been at work for a few weeks before going off sick, that his probation had been extended, and that an interim Finance Director had been appointed to cover his absence. Although the respondent also relied on budgetary and senior-role reasons, the tribunal found the decision was not objectively justified.

In the harassment claim, the tribunal upheld the complaint about the 12 December 2022 statement that the claimant had not acknowledged the impact of his sickness on others and the 6 February 2023 document stating that RB could not agree or disagree with the list of work the claimant said he had completed. It found those comments were capable, in context, of being humiliating and offensive to the claimant, who had continued to do meaningful work when able during treatment. The remaining harassment allegations were dismissed.

The victimisation claim succeeded on several appeal and grievance handling matters. The tribunal found that the claimant's pay appeal was not sent to the Trustees, that the outcome letter inaccurately suggested the appeal had been considered and upheld through the policy, that the appeal emails were not provided before the grievance hearing, and that the grievance outcome failed to uphold the discrimination complaint. It found those matters were materially influenced by the claimant's protected acts, but the other alleged victimisation incidents were not made out.