In person For the v Mr G Ridgeway, Employment Consultant — 2020

Ms Doreen Dankyi, described by the tribunal as Black African, started work as Personal Administrator to the Bursar/HR on 22 August 2016 and completed probation successfully on 31 January 2017. In May 2017 she asked for flexible working and additional unpaid leave because she had separated from her husband and was caring for her children. Dr Young refused the request on business grounds, saying the post needed full-year cover from 8am. After the refusal the claimant went on sick leave with fit notes describing work-related stress, was seen by occupational health, and later returned for a health and safety questionnaire and return-to-work discussion.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled at the material times. It relied on the contemporaneous medical material, including Dr Magnusson's 2016 report, the 2017 fit notes, and Dr Pattani's report, and rejected the claimant's disability impact statement as unsupported by the evidence. It also noted that the claimant continued to communicate in detailed emails and was able to take her daughter to school, which did not fit the extent of impairment described in that statement. The tribunal further found that, even if she had been disabled, the respondent did not know of any disability until 31 July 2017.

On 28 July 2017 Dr Young invited the claimant to an employment review meeting for 31 July 2017, saying her suitability for the role would be considered and that termination was possible. The claimant replied the same day that she believed she was being treated unfairly and, for the first time, said she was being discriminated against because she was black. She later said in further emails that she had depression and wanted to return to work. At the review meeting Dr Young raised concerns about her working style, use of notes and checklists, and her relationship with Ms Bates. After advice, he dismissed her with immediate effect and paid three months' pay in lieu of notice.

The tribunal rejected the direct disability discrimination claim because there was no sufficient basis for a prima facie case and, in any event, the respondent had not known of any disability at the relevant time. It rejected the direct race discrimination claim because the claimant's flexible working request had been based on childcare, the comparator relied on for the hours issue had not had her hours changed, and the evidence pointed to a breakdown in working relationships and concerns about suitability rather than race. The harassment claims failed because the conduct complained of was not related to disability or race, and the victimisation claim failed because Dr Young had not read the grievance email relied on as the protected act before deciding to dismiss. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal concluded that the alleged PCPs were not established as PCPs or were not shown to have been applied. The provisional remedy hearing listed for 24 February 2020 was vacated and no award was made.