Ms M Cornaglia, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a supervising social worker in the fostering team, was dismissed for gross misconduct after giving SH gifts on 12 September 2018, including a card, a St Christopher necklace and a Next voucher, and after writing a case note that the tribunal considered inappropriate because it was heavily centred on the claimant's own thoughts and feelings and included criticism of carers' faith. The tribunal accepted Mr Morgan's evidence that the 2017 Christmas gifts were part of the background but that the dismissal was driven by the 2018 conduct and the claimant's case note.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found some shortcomings in the investigation, including the absence of direct questioning of Ms Ejo about the 2017 gifts and the fact that the claimant was not given full access to all of her devices during the investigation. It nevertheless held that those flaws did not take the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses. It rejected the claimant's case that Mr Jones had authorised the gifts given on 12 September 2018, and found that a reasonable employer could conclude that the claimant had not been given permission to do what she did.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, finding that the real and only reason for dismissal was conduct rather than disability. It also rejected the section 15 claim, holding that although the claimant's disability may have contributed to the conduct, dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining professional boundaries. The tribunal attached weight to the claimant's refusal to attend a further assessment by a Chartered Occupational Psychologist, which it considered relevant to the respondent's assessment of the risk of repetition.

The harassment claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal held that the allegations based on the events of 19 June, 14 August, 4 September and 21 September 2018 were out of time and that there was no evidential basis to extend time on a just and equitable basis. However, it found that the appeal decision letter's statement that the claimant had chosen to 'mask' autism was unwanted conduct related to disability and had the effect of violating dignity, so that section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was made out in respect of that passage.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had been treated detrimentally because she had raised grievances. The judgment ended with liability only and listed a separate remedy hearing for 15 January 2021, so no compensation was determined in this decision.