In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal first determined, as an oral preliminary issue, that Ms Owen was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during her employment, by reason of dyspraxia. It accepted the specialist learning-difficulties evidence and the occupational health material, together with Ms Owen's oral evidence, that she had long-term difficulties with reading speed, writing, organisation, note-taking, email and form completion, following verbal instructions, concentration, and everyday tasks such as phone use and driving. The tribunal held that these effects, viewed cumulatively, were substantial and affected normal day-to-day activities, and it rejected the respondent's submission that the problems were simply the intellectual demands of the work.

The tribunal then dealt with the claimant's disability-related harassment claim. It found that Ms Owen had withdrawn the whole of that claim, not merely part of it, and that a judgment dismissing it should be issued under Rules 51 and 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. In deciding whether dismissal after withdrawal was in the interests of justice, the tribunal took account of the balance of prejudice between the parties and the fact that the claimant had withdrawn with legal advice. It also noted that she could still rely on the underlying factual allegations in support of her remaining complaints.

Finally, the tribunal refused the respondent's applications to strike out, or require a deposit for, the constructive unfair dismissal complaint and the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. It held that it could not say either complaint had no or little reasonable prospect of success. On constructive dismissal, the tribunal said evidence would be needed on any breach of mutual trust and confidence and on whether the claimant had affirmed the contract during her sickness absence. On reasonable adjustments, it said the pleaded adjustments and PCPs, including equipment, coaching, software, mileage forms, a collective process, 9 a.m. meetings, workload and training, were matters that could not be resolved against the claimant at this stage. No monetary remedy was determined in this hearing.