Miss Alison Raeside v Data Systems (Computers) Limited — 2020

Miss Alison Raeside worked for Data Systems (Computers) Limited from 6 March 2017 to 2 August 2017 as a security sales specialist. The respondent conceded that she was disabled by reason of cancer remission and accepted knowledge from 19 May 2017. The tribunal found that she had not told the respondent about her cancer during recruitment, that her role carried sales targets which she agreed to, and that her sales performance was poor: she made two small sales worth £2,700 and £3,600, or £6,300 in the first quarter against a target of £40,000, and no other sales. It also found that references obtained in June 2017 were inconsistent with her CV and were unsatisfactory.

On the direct discrimination complaint, the tribunal held that dismissal was less favourable treatment, but found it was not because of disability. It rejected the claimant's reliance on alleged refusal to pay for medical appointments, sceptical treatment over appointments, and an alleged unauthorised approach to her oncologist, finding those matters were not proved as alleged. It also held that Mrs Ellis was not an appropriate comparator because she too had breast cancer. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's reasons for dismissal were the claimant's non-performance against sales targets and unsatisfactory references, and that those reasons were not discriminatory.

On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that her sickness absences, including the sleep-related absences relied on, were something arising in consequence of cancer or cancer treatment. The medical evidence referred to Letrozole problems and recurrent urinary infections, but did not establish that Letrozole caused the claimant's sleep issues, and most of the absences in June and July occurred after she had stopped taking Letrozole. The tribunal therefore did not reach the necessary causal link. It said that if it had found the section 15 claim made out, it would still have accepted the respondent's explanation that dismissal was for poor sales performance and unsatisfactory references, and would have regarded any reliance on unauthorised absence as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal found there was no PCP requiring the claimant to work from the office instead of working from home. It found she did work from home on occasion and could do so by telling the respondent, so she was not placed at the relevant substantial disadvantage advanced in the claim. It also found no evidence that the respondent knew or should reasonably have known that she was likely to be disadvantaged in that way. The disability harassment complaints also failed: the tribunal held that the June emails were factual responses to absence and appointments, the GP and oncologist letters were factual requests for medical clarification, the 12 July email was not shown to have the prohibited effect, and the August appeal correspondence was about the appeal arrangements rather than disability.