In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was a disabled Band 4 medical secretary whose work had historically been office-based away from the Ward. In the 2021 Administrative Review, her role was redefined as Ward-based or predominantly Ward-based. The tribunal found that she could not work in that environment because of her spinal injury, SLE, fibromyalgia, PTSD and stress/depression, and it relied on the Occupational Health report of 29 July 2021, which said she was likely unable to work on a Ward or would suffer a significant exacerbation of symptoms. It also found that the Trust never clearly told her that she could continue working as before from a separate office.

On the disability discrimination issues, the tribunal rejected the complaints that she was not appointed to the Band 4 Crisis Pathway role and that Mr Pattison had said she had overstated her disabilities. It found that the reason she was not slotted into the Crisis Pathway post was the Trust's view that new posts had to be filled by competitive interview, based on an asserted trade union agreement. The tribunal nevertheless found that offering her the Ward-based role without adjustments was unfavourable treatment arising from disability and also a failure to make reasonable adjustments. It identified the reasonable adjustments as allowing her to continue in the office-based arrangement she had previously had, or alternatively appointing her to the Crisis Pathway role.

The direct discrimination claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not find that the treatment was because of disability. In the constructive dismissal analysis, the tribunal held that the cumulative effect of the failure to adjust the role, the failure to appoint her to Crisis Pathway, the delay in the grievance process, and the refusal to provide investigation notes amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. It found that the earlier Occupational Health consent error was a genuine mistake and that some later grievance steps post-dated the resignation, but the claimant resigned in response to the latest breaches. Remedy was left to a later hearing.