In person For the v Mr Hussain, (litigation consultant) — 2024

Dr Driver was employed as a newly qualified computer science teacher from 1 September 2020. The respondent accepted that she was disabled by autism and Irlen's Syndrome and knew of both conditions. The tribunal found that she had told the school during recruitment what adjustments she needed, that Anna Wright was the main point of contact for practical adjustments, and that the school obtained equipment including an iPad, lamps, overlays and other visual aids after taking advice from Access to Work.

On limitation, the tribunal held that anything before 11 February 2021 was outside the primary time limit and that there was no continuing discriminatory state of affairs running to 19 April 2021. It found that, if reasonable adjustments had been owed and not made, the date by which they should reasonably have been in place would have been mid-November 2020, but time was not extended because the complaints failed on their merits.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the complaints about occupational health, HR involvement, a disability mentor, room allocation, medical appointments, risk assessment and the format of the probation letter. It found that the handbook policy on medical appointments was flexible where there was particular difficulty, that AW would have allowed appointments if asked, and that the respondent did not refuse a support mentor because AW initially dealt with practical adjustments and later Caroline Mahan became the disability champion. As to rooms, the tribunal accepted that the school was a busy site operating under Covid zoning and bubbles, that it had made an attempt to provide a base room, and that providing up to three exclusive rooms or an absolutely private retreat room was not reasonable. It also found that the lighting issue in ICT4 was temporary and not shown to have caused a substantial disadvantage.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that extending probation on 27 November 2020 and requiring sickness absence meetings were unfavourable treatment and were caused by disability-related performance issues and sickness absence. However, it accepted the respondent's evidence that the aims were to support the claimant to succeed and to manage pupil education and staffing, and it held that the measures were proportionate. The allegation that the respondent repeatedly communicated the effect of her absence on colleagues was not made out; the tribunal found only one reference, in an absence-management letter, and accepted that it was sent to explain cover planning.

The constructive dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found no discriminatory conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach or conduct entitling the claimant to resign without notice. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's disability and the probation extension were factors in her decision to resign, but it found that the respondent had not breached the Equality Act 2010 in the ways alleged. All complaints were therefore dismissed.