Mr M Aslam, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant worked for the London Borough of Haringey as a CCTV camera enforcement operator from 8 February 2010. The tribunal found that she had a poor working relationship with Mr Mehmet and that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, she was disabled from 26 October 2013 to the date of dismissal because of stress, panic attacks and anxiety. The judgment records a detailed sickness absence history and a series of attendance review, formal and intermediate meetings under the respondent's sickness absence policy.

The whistleblowing claim failed. The tribunal held that the 8 September 2015 grievance did not disclose information tending to show a relevant health and safety breach and was instead about the claimant's own working conditions, hours, facilities and treatment at work. It also found no public interest element sufficient to make the grievance a protected disclosure, and no evidence that any such disclosure materially influenced the later dismissal.

The direct discrimination allegation based on the alleged 24 January 2014 comment by Mr Mehmet failed. The tribunal preferred the contemporaneous emails and Mr Mehmet's evidence and found that he did not say 'go and work somewhere else if you are getting paranoid'. It also observed that, at that point, the information before management did not establish that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal rejected the discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15. It accepted that the sickness monitoring process and dismissal were unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's absence record, which arose from her disability, but found that the respondent was pursuing the legitimate aim of an effective and efficient service and that its actions were proportionate. The tribunal accepted that occupational health support, mediation and redeployment steps had been offered, although the claimant did not fully engage with them.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the requirement to work with Mr Mehmet exacerbated the claimant's stress and anxiety, that disability-related absences should have been considered for discounting under the sickness absence policy, and that the redeployment search should have continued during the notice period after dismissal. It held that those adjustments were reasonable and that the respondent had failed to make them.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted capability as the reason for dismissal on 27 May 2016, and found that the respondent had undertaken a reasonable investigation and obtained occupational health reports. However, it held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not consider discounting disability-related absences and did not continue the redeployment process during the notice period, contrary to its own policy. The tribunal found 10% contributory fault for the claimant's failure to provide an appropriate fit note and attend the sickness meetings, but reserved Polkey and final remedy issues to a later hearing.