In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Ms Ifueko Osaghae was employed by Mountain Healthcare Limited as a Human Resources Advisor from 31 January 2022 to 15 July 2022. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of rheumatoid arthritis. It found that she did not disclose the condition on her starter form, did not raise it in one-to-one meetings with her line manager, and did not identify any need for adjustments during the early part of her employment.

The tribunal found that the probationary review process had already moved to a negative conclusion before the respondent knew of the disability. It accepted that the line manager had completed the probationary review form by 24 June 2022, or at the latest immediately before the scheduled meeting on 27 June 2022, and that the decision not to confirm the claimant’s appointment had been taken before her sickness absence started. The claimant first disclosed a rheumatoid arthritis flare-up by email on 29 June 2022, and the tribunal held that the dismissal was based on the manager’s assessment that she had not met the required standard of the role, not on sickness absence arising from disability.

The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found that the sickness absence did arise in consequence of disability, but it did not play a part in the decision to dismiss. It also rejected the alternative case that the claimant had less time to improve between reviews because of sickness absence, describing that as a chronology point rather than treatment. Even if the claim were reframed as bringing forward the final probationary review, the tribunal held that the contract permitted termination where the required standard would not be reached, and there was no evidence that the disability had affected performance before the flare-up.

The reasonable adjustments complaint also failed. The PCP relied on was the requirement for employees to show adequate improvement during probation. The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that the PCP placed her at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees, because there was no evidence that rheumatoid arthritis affected her ability to work before the flare-up that led to sick leave. In any event, the tribunal found the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant had such a disadvantage, including after the back-to-work meeting, the probationary review, and the grievance email. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.