In person For the first to third v Respondent — 2025

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled with PTSD, anxiety and depression throughout her employment. It found that her GP fit notes recommending working from home were advisory only, that the respondent's move to have work coaches return to the office from spring 2022 was not itself a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and that it was reasonable to invite the claimant to the step 2 meeting on 8 July 2022. It rejected the contention that the claimant should have been allowed to work from home indefinitely without any process.

On the victimisation claim, the tribunal found that the 11 May 2022 discussion about the claimant's workload was driven by staffing shortages and the need to reallocate diary capacity across the cluster, not by the claimant's December 2021 grievance. Applying section 136 EqA 2010 and Efobi, it found no facts from which an inference of retaliatory treatment could properly be drawn, and it accepted on the balance of probabilities that the grievance played no part.

On the harassment claim arising from the 5 August 2022 all-staff meeting, the tribunal found that a comment was made about the claimant being able to make money from her smooth or husky voice, but it was not satisfied that anyone expressly referred to her as a sex worker. It criticised the later grievance investigation as materially flawed, particularly the use of leading questions, and concluded that the apparent sex-worker recollection in two witnesses had been implanted after the matter was discussed internally. Even on the factual findings it made, the tribunal held that the jokey comment did not amount to harassment under section 26 EqA 2010. All claims were dismissed.