Mr I Wheaton (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked as a Senior Auditor from November 2019 until her dismissal on 7 June 2022. The tribunal found that she developed anxiety and depression from early November 2021, and accepted that this affected social contact, sleep and walking. It did not attach weight to the GP letters produced in October 2023, which were written much later by a doctor who had not met or treated her. Applying the Equality Act disability definition, the tribunal held that the condition was long-term because, without therapy, its substantial effects could well have continued beyond June 2022, so the claimant was disabled at the date of dismissal.

The discrimination arising from disability complaint failed. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not because of the claimant's sickness absence or any inability to take part in procedures, but because Mr Dyson concluded that she had intentionally failed to engage with the respondent during sick leave, contrary to the sickness management policy and her terms and conditions. It also found that the claimant was not unable to take part in the respondent's procedures, and that the failure to engage was not shown to arise in consequence of her disability. If that had been made out, the tribunal said the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled, because it had only fit notes and had repeatedly sought further information through wellbeing documents and occupational health. It would also have found dismissal proportionate for the respondent's legitimate aim of managing long-term absence and maintaining contact.

The unfair dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal applied the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996 and held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It found that the respondent followed its sickness management and disciplinary procedures, informed the claimant of the allegations and appeal rights, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing her. As both claims failed, the remedy hearing listed for 29 February 2024 was vacated.