C Obazuaye For the v A Allen QC — 2022

The claimant worked from 1 March 2019 as an outpatient clinic receptionist and call centre clerk. The tribunal found that she was disabled at all material times by reason of COPD. It also allowed an amendment to the victimisation claim in part, but refused a broader amendment concerning alleged failure to discuss her medical condition and reasonable adjustments. The main issues at hearing were her request to reduce her hours to a 24-hour, three-day week with a 30-minute lunch break, the handling of medical appointment time, later disciplinary and management steps, and the circumstances of her resignation on 28 August 2019 and the resignation in haste meeting on 14 November 2019.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race in relation to the flexible working response, the requirement for evidence of a medical appointment, the complaint about Natalie Fletcher, the Improvement Notice, the 19 August 2019 email from Peter Towers, or the absence of an outcome letter after the resignation in haste meeting. It accepted that Alison Rance had initially confused the claimant with another employee when replying to the flexible working request, described that as a genuine mistake, and found that the proposed move to the call centre was linked to staffing needs in the eye clinic. For the lunch-break issue, it found that IM was not a suitable race comparator because IM was black, and it considered a white disabled comparator instead. It also found that the request for appointment evidence was made under the respondent's policy and that the Fletcher matter had been investigated, with further discussion intended at the 5 August 2019 meeting.

The sex discrimination claim concerned only Peter Towers' email of 19 August 2019. The tribunal found that the email did not tell the claimant she should undertake training; it said that if she felt she needed training she should speak to her manager. The victimisation claim failed even though the tribunal accepted a series of protected acts in the claimant's emails of 24 June, 9 July, 11 July, 23 July, 26 July, 1 August, 4 August, 8 August, 14 August, 15 August, 28 August and 31 August 2019, because it found that the respondent's actions were not taken because of those protected acts. It held that the Improvement Notice was issued because of behaviour concerns and HR advice, and that the absence of an outcome letter after the resignation in haste meeting was consistent with the respondent's evidence that such letters were not usual.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed because the tribunal found no PCP requiring staff in the claimant's role to take a full hour for lunch. It accepted that the respondent had a policy of requiring evidence of medical appointments taken during working hours and of not granting paid time off for those appointments, but found that the claimant had not shown a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees. The discriminatory constructive dismissal claim was dismissed because it depended on the same allegations as the failed discrimination claims, none of which succeeded.