In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was employed as a medical secretary in the Histology Department at Northwick Park Hospital. The tribunal accepted that she had disabilities affecting her shoulder, hands and, later, her mental health, and it found that the respondent responded to her difficulties by referring her to Occupational Health, adjusting her duties, giving breaks, and obtaining equipment including a specialist chair and keyboard/mouse. The central dispute was whether the claimant should continue doing some typing, with breaks, or whether typing should be removed almost entirely from her role.

On the indirect disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the alleged requirement to work her full job description including typing for extended periods was not in fact applied to her once her disabilities were known. It found that from February 2018 the claimant was working under a revised regime that limited typing, allowed regular breaks, and required her to put work aside if she could not manage it. The tribunal also held that, if there had been any relevant disadvantage, the respondent's approach was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including enabling the claimant to remain at work while maintaining the department's service needs.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal rejected the claimant's proposed adjustments. It found that voice recognition software was not a reasonable adjustment because it could not be integrated into the respondent's bespoke system without major changes and patient-safety risks. It also found that removing typing altogether, or creating a new admin-only role within the department, was not reasonable because Occupational Health continued to say that some typing was possible and the department did not have separable administrative work sufficient to form such a post. The tribunal found that the respondent had already made reasonable adjustments by reducing typing expectations, seeking further Occupational Health and Health and Safety input, and considering alternative work, including possible redeployment.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the complained-of matters were caused by protected acts, and in several instances it found no detriment at all. It held that the holiday absence issue arose from an HR.NET recording error and the claimant's failure to explain the rejected request; that the dental absence criticism flowed from her failure to contact Ms Haydock-Wilson directly; and that other complaints were either not made out on the facts or were trivial in context. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.