Ms Polly Cobb v Norfolk County Council — 2026

The tribunal accepted that Ms Cobb had the disability of depression and anxiety and that Norfolk County Council knew of it at all material times. Although allegations predating 15 February 2021 were presented outside the primary time limit, the tribunal considered it just and equitable to extend time. It found no conduct extending over a period because the alleged events either did not occur as alleged or were not discriminatory, and the recruitment exercises involved different roles and decision-makers.

The direct disability discrimination complaint concerned the ending of Ms Cobb's Integrated Care Programme Manager contract. The tribunal found that this was a fixed-term contract, initially ending on 31 May 2020 and subsequently extended in writing to 26 June and 31 August 2020. It rejected the contention that an ongoing extension had been agreed and found that the contract was not terminated in July 2020. Informing Ms Cobb that it would end after the second extension was not less favourable treatment, and she had not established the required connection between her disability and the ending of the contract. The tribunal found that the relevant decisions arose from HR advice, the review of the role and the provision of an eight-week redeployment period, rather than from her disability.

For the reasonable-adjustments complaint, the Council accepted practices involving preset interview dates and requiring or expecting candidates to participate in interviews. The tribunal found no evidence that the Council knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that these practices would place Ms Cobb at the claimed substantial disadvantage. For the Senior Commissioning Manager role, she had stated that she required no adaptations, applied while absent through sickness, prepared a presentation and attended the interview. For the permanent Integrated Care Programme Manager role, she selected the interview time and was told that she could take a break. For the Learning Disabilities Commissioning Manager role, the Council could not reasonably have known when the date was set that the invitation would cause distress or sickness absence, and Ms Cobb did not attend the interview. The tribunal therefore dismissed the reasonable-adjustments complaint.

The tribunal found that the grievance dated 5 August 2020 was not a protected act because it concerned the ending of the fixed-term contract, suitable alternative employment and redundancy without alleging facts capable of amounting to discrimination. It accepted that the grievance dated 30 March 2021, which alleged indirect discrimination and failures to make reasonable adjustments, was a protected act. The tribunal nevertheless dismissed the victimisation complaint because the alleged detriments either had not occurred, were not detriments, or were not because of a protected act. In particular, the June 2021 posts were restricted to internal candidates after Ms Cobb's employment had ended, and the evidence did not connect the recruitment of consultants to a protected act.