Mr J Wilkes (solicitor) on 24 August 2020 Mr R Bhatt (counsel) from 26 August 2020 For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, Ms Tyra Stoodley-Dowty, was employed by Surrey Police from 30 March 2009 and was a disabled person by reason of bowel cancer diagnosed in June 2015. She was seconded into an OCGM co-ordinator role, but the respondent’s SCCP restructure proposed that the role would move from Mount Browne to Woking. Occupational health identified fatigue, travel difficulties, and the need for easier access home, and recommended adjustments including parking, homeworking, working from Mount Browne, and trialling options to see what worked.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a PCP of requiring the OCGM role to be undertaken at Woking and that this put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because longer travel worsened her symptoms and made it harder for her to get home urgently if needed. It found that the respondent knew of that disadvantage from the occupational health material. The key failure was that, from 24 May 2018, the respondent did not proceed on the basis agreed by Ms Fullick and the claimant, namely that the claimant could work flexibly and attend Woking only once or twice a week with the remainder of her working time from another location such as Mount Browne. Instead, Mr Norbury told her she would need to be at Woking for the majority of the week, which the tribunal found went too far and led her to reject the role and leave on redundancy.

On that basis, the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded, and the dismissal for redundancy was found to be unfair because a reasonable employer would have clarified the adjustment issue before dismissing. The tribunal held that the OCGM role was a suitable alternative role with reasonable adjustments, that the claimant would have accepted it on the basis proposed by Ms Fullick, and that she would not have been dismissed if the respondent had taken those further steps. The tribunal also held that the reduction of the recognition bonus from the agreed £500 to £100 was discrimination arising from disability because it resulted from her inability to complete the buddying element after she had to leave the Woking-based role, and that reduction was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The remaining complaints failed. Direct discrimination failed because there was no comparator evidence and no evidence that dismissal was because of disability. Indirect discrimination failed because, although the PCP was identified, the claimant did not prove group disadvantage for people with her disability. Harassment failed because the tribunal did not find the reduced notice period or the response to the letter of claim to amount to unwanted conduct with the required effect, and victimisation failed because the tribunal did not find any of the alleged detriments were caused by the protected acts, despite accepting that protected acts had been made. Remedy was left to a later hearing.