In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent from 3 February 2014 as an Assistant Housekeeping Supervisor (Linen). After absence from 30 June 2017 for low back pain, she returned on light duties and an occupational health report dated 28 September 2017 recorded right shoulder pain and right index-finger pain caused by lifting linen above shoulder height. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of the right shoulder injury only; it did not accept that the finger or back conditions met the statutory definition. By a majority, the tribunal held that the respondent had actual or imputed knowledge of disability from the further occupational health report dated 21 June 2018, although a minority would have found imputed knowledge from the earlier report in September 2017.

The tribunal rejected the direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination and reasonable-adjustment complaints. It found that the October and November 2017 team-building events were sign-up events rather than invitations, that the claimant was not then working as an Assistant Team Supervisor, and that reallocating her former duties to another employee was inevitable because she could not perform them. It held that the respondent first used its Light Duties Policy and then moved to the formal Capability Policy when light duties had run their course. The claimant's suggested adjustments, including protected pay in another role, a customer service role, or an inventory supervisor role, were found not to be reasonable adjustments in the circumstances.

The tribunal also dismissed the victimisation claim. It accepted that the May 2018 grievance was a protected act, but found that the social media investigation, the decision to pause processes while the claimant was absent with stress, and the continuation of the capability process were not because of that grievance. The claimant's alleged March 2018 remark by Matthew Vyse was not proved. On the dismissal claims, the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no constructive dismissal; the claimant resigned on 21 August 2018 when she anticipated capability and disciplinary processes, but that did not amount to a dismissal. No award was made and the claim was dismissed in full.