Mrs T Jhuti v Lloyds Bank plc — 2020

The claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination concerning the respondent's management of her sickness absence, wellbeing reviews, grievance processes, support on return to work, and refusal to allow a family member to accompany her at a grievance hearing. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant's stress, depression and anxiety were disabilities and that the respondent knew she was disabled by around 3 March 2016.

On the section 15 complaint, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant's sickness absence from January 2016 arose in consequence of disability. It found, however, that the absence action plan was proposed and agreed rather than imposed, that the claimant was not threatened when told the possible consequences of further absence, and that the respondent's wellbeing meetings and absence-management steps were appropriate and proportionate.

On reasonable adjustments, the Tribunal found that the pleaded PCPs did not put the claimant at the substantial disadvantage alleged. It found no established backlog requiring her to work five days a week on return, found the informal wellbeing process was used to support rather than penalise her, and was not satisfied that refusing a family member at the grievance hearing caused the pleaded substantial disadvantage. It also found that the respondent had given the claimant an answer about the Beaconsfield move, had provided support on return to work, and had investigated the grievances thoroughly, although there were unexplained delays in the grievance processes.

The Tribunal concluded that the claimant's complaints were not well founded and dismissed them. It stated that, had the claimant succeeded, it would have been just and equitable to consider complaints relating to matters before 18 July 2017 despite time limits because they formed part of connected events.