Mrs Ranjit Panesar v DX Network Services Limited — 2021

Mrs Panesar was employed by DX Network Services Limited from January 2017. The tribunal accepted that she had cancer and was a disabled person within s6 Equality Act 2010, with the respondent accepting knowledge from summer 2017. The dispute concerned her March 2019 redundancy from an HR MI Adviser role and a series of complaints about working from home, redundancy consultation, and comments made by colleagues and managers.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that a genuine redundancy situation arose because of a new HR and payroll system together with financial difficulties. It held that the respondent consulted with the claimant over four redundancy meetings, considered alternative roles, and acted within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal rejected the case that the redundancy was a sham or that the outcome had been unlawfully predetermined.

The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and victimisation claims. It found that the claimant's HR MI Adviser role was a stand-alone role, that the selection pool of one was justified, that the Marketing Executive role was not shown to be suitable alternative employment on the evidence, and that the PCPs advanced for the indirect and reasonable adjustments claims were not properly formulated as PCPs. It also held that pausing parts of the grievance pending the redundancy process was a sensible case-management step rather than victimisation.

The harassment claim succeeded in relation to four specific comments about the claimant's working from home, including repeated references to 'cosy days' and the 12 March 2019 remark that her health had not helped her that year. The tribunal found those comments were unwanted, related to disability and the working-from-home adjustments, and formed a continuing course of conduct that was in time under s123 EqA. No remedy figures were fixed in this liability judgment; remedy and costs were left for a later hearing.