In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was a programme leader who had worked for the respondent since 1990. The tribunal accepted that she had been under excessive workload pressure and that she became disabled by reason of stress and depression from August 2016. It found that the respondent had actual knowledge of her condition from June 2016 and sufficient knowledge of disability from August 2016.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability, following two years of sickness absence and the respondent's view that there was no reasonable prospect of a return in the reasonably foreseeable future. It concluded that the dismissing officer acted reasonably, despite some procedural issues including a missed early absence review and a delayed appeal outcome.

The tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination claims and the discrimination arising from disability claims. It did not accept that the claimant had been pushed into unpaid leave, that the resignation email was disability-related, that the dismissing officer was appointed because of disability, or that appeal delay was disability-related. It accepted that dismissal arose from disability-related absence, but held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of running an efficient service.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected most alleged adjustments on the basis that they would not have enabled a return to work or that the alleged provision, criterion or practice was not established. It found that workload reduction should have occurred in or shortly after August 2016 and that the respondent should earlier have alerted the claimant to therapy, but those claims were brought substantially out of time and it was not just and equitable to consider them.