Mr J Davis, Solicitor For the v Mr J Munroe, Employment Consultant — 2021

The tribunal found that Ms Eleanor Stevenson was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes because she suffered from PTSD from 26 March 2019. It accepted that the claimant had been seriously assaulted in December 2018, went on sick leave, and later remained unfit for work because of PTSD. The tribunal also held that the discrimination complaints were presented in time because they formed a continuing course of conduct ending with her resignation on 4 June 2019.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal found a clear difference in treatment between male and female staff. It accepted evidence that the claimant was not given appraisals, performance reviews, personal progression, regular pay rises, or comparable training, while male staff were appraised and promoted. It also accepted the claimant's evidence about sexist and offensive WhatsApp messages, a sticker with a sexual insult on her monitor, being instructed to clean dog faeces, a hard ball being thrown at her, and the male-dominated office environment. The tribunal rejected the respondent's description of this as banter or horseplay and found the claimant had been treated less favourably because of sex.

On discrimination arising in consequence of disability, the tribunal found that the respondent knew of the claimant's PTSD from the fit notes and related communications. It held that the claimant was unfavourably treated when the respondent did not provide practical welfare support, put her into the disciplinary process over her sickness absence, and paid statutory sick pay instead of full salary while she was absent. The tribunal found the respondent had not shown justification; applying its own assessment of proportionality, it considered the disciplinary approach and threatened termination disproportionate in the circumstances.

The harassment claims failed. The tribunal held that the sex-related offensive messages were largely in 2017 and that no later unwanted conduct related to sex was proved for harassment purposes. It also found no evidence of unwanted conduct related to disability, so the disability harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal then held that the cumulative treatment, including the discrimination findings, the redundancy planning, and the disciplinary threat sent while the claimant was on sick leave, was the last straw that entitled her to resign. It therefore found constructive unfair dismissal well-founded and recorded that the case was listed for a later remedy hearing.