In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal found that Ms P Mwangi was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by rheumatoid arthritis and partial hearing loss. It accepted that Mr Gunyon knew she had arthritis and some hearing impairment, but the direct discrimination claims on grounds of race, sex and disability were rejected. The tribunal found that she was not subjected to excessive workloads, unreasonable pressure to meet deadlines, or a reprimand for arriving late, and it did not accept that Scott Frith bullied her in a way that was linked to any protected characteristic.

The tribunal also rejected the complaints about the written warning, furlough, redundancy notice and rejection of appeal. It found that the warning followed problems with the claimant's CVRs, that the furlough decision was taken in the same way as for other staff, and that the redundancy was caused by a very significant drop in work at Royal Holloway after lockdown. The tribunal accepted that the respondent used an abbreviated process because it believed employees with under two years' service could be dismissed without a lengthy process, and it noted that a white, male quantity surveyor with less than two years' service was treated in the same way. Mr Karim's appeal decision was found to be reasonable and not motivated by race, sex or disability.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that requiring the claimant to work in the portacabin was a provision, criterion or practice and that there were times when the environment was cold for her, which worsened her arthritic pain. It held that the respondent had enough information to be on notice that her arthritis might amount to a disability and should have asked about the impact of the condition around October 2019. The tribunal found that reasonable steps would have been to move her to a warmer workplace such as head office or to improve the heating and monitor the temperature. It concluded that the failure to make reasonable adjustments lasted from October 2019 until early March 2020, when she was moved to head office.

Although the tribunal upheld the substance of the reasonable-adjustments complaint, it held that the complaint was out of time because early conciliation ran from 9 September to 24 September 2020 and the ET1 was not presented until 29 October 2020. It found that complaints before 9 June 2020 were out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, citing the limited explanation for delay. No remedy hearing was required and no monetary award was made.