In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved that her ADHD amounted to a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. It noted that her impact statement dealt with the effects of the condition on her work roles rather than on normal day-to-day activities, that she had not provided relevant medical evidence addressing the statutory test, and that she had conflated ADHD with other matters such as dyslexia, mental health issues and panic attacks. It therefore rejected the disability case and also found no evidence that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of a disability before March 2022.

The tribunal then dealt with limitation. It held that events occurring wholly before 10 June 2022 were prima facie out of time, given the ACAS contact on 9 September 2022, the Early Conciliation Certificate on 12 September 2022 and presentation of the claim on 8 October 2022. It found that most of the reasonable adjustment allegations were separate decisions taken by different individuals in different circumstances, so they were not part of a continuing act, and it declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds.

The only reasonable adjustment allegation treated as in time was the request for an Apple Pen in June 2022. The tribunal found that the Workplace Needs Assessment on 15 June 2022 recommended provision of the pen to remove the disadvantage, so although there may have been delay, the adjustment had been accepted and was to be implemented. That meant the reasonable adjustment claim failed on the merits even if disability had been established.

The constructive dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found that the respondent had made efforts to accommodate the claimant, had supported her return to work, and had implemented recommended adjustments. It held that the July 2022 meeting about her return to work was supportive and could not amount to a last straw, and that the claimant’s individual concerns, whether taken separately or together, did not amount to a fundamental breach or justify resignation. The tribunal therefore dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim as not well founded.