In person For the v Ms J Headford, solicitor — 2023

The claimant worked as a Financial Reporting Accountant from 28 October 2019 to 24 February 2020. She disclosed mild depression on her onboarding forms, and the tribunal found that Stonewater was put on notice of a disability and that Ms Shi then sought HR advice and made enquiries of the claimant. The tribunal accepted that Ms Shi provided support, including a buddy, induction help, training, one-to-ones and a task checklist, but found that the claimant often did not disclose the extent of any ongoing impact and gave non-disability reasons for some requests, including childcare when seeking flexible working.

The tribunal found that there were genuine performance concerns, particularly about time management, attention to detail and analytical skills, supported by the December 2019 review, the January 2020 Entity Pack work, the January month-end close and the three-month probation review on 10 February 2020. It accepted that the reason for dismissal, communicated on 24 February 2020, was failure to achieve the required standard in those areas. On the s.15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant took longer to do some tasks, but found that the dismissal was not because of that fact and not because of any other consequence of disability. Even if s.15 had been made out, the tribunal said the respondent was pursuing a legitimate aim of accurate and timely financial reporting and that dismissal was proportionate in the circumstances.

The direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, reasonable adjustments and victimisation complaints all failed. The tribunal did not accept that the pleaded incidents amounted to less favourable treatment because of disability, and it found no evidential basis for an inference that the treatment complained of was targeted at the claimant because she was disabled. It held that the common probationary period was not shown to place people with depression and anxiety at a particular disadvantage, and that the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent lacked knowledge of any specific substantial disadvantage and, in any event, had already taken steps to support her. The victimisation complaint failed because the tribunal found that the dismissal was driven by performance concerns, not by the claimant's withdrawal of her resignation or her complaint that the probation review had not taken mental health into account. All claims were dismissed and no remedy hearing was needed.