E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4100271/2019 Held in Aberdeen on 13, 14, May 2019 and June 201910 Employment Judge: J D Young Mrs Rebecca Neil v Mr D Neil, Husband Aberdeen Foyer — 2019

Mrs Rebecca Neil was employed by Aberdeen Foyer from 9 January 2012 until her dismissal with effect from 12 September 2018. The tribunal found that she had a mental impairment in the form of continuing depression, supported by the medical records and evidence of medication since 2012, and that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It therefore held that she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found that Aberdeen Foyer knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of that disability from the medical certificates, GP correspondence and the October 2017 meeting.

The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The claimant said it was discriminatory to require her to work at Fraserburgh, first on return from sickness absence and later during the investigation, because of earlier difficulties there and because the location increased her anxiety. The tribunal did not accept that any link between the Fraserburgh placement and increased anxiety or stress was made out, and it found no basis for a section 15 claim or a failure to make reasonable adjustments. It also rejected the direct discrimination complaint under section 13 because there was no evidence that she was treated less favourably than a comparator because of disability.

The tribunal also rejected the complaint that the disciplinary hearing was unfair because the claimant had taken Diazepam beforehand. It found that she told HR she felt woozy, but she did not ask for an adjournment, a break or any adjustment, and the evidence did not show a substantial disadvantage arising from the medication. In the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed she had disclosed confidential information about REACH participants to NESCol staff, that the belief rested on reasonable grounds following an investigation, and that the investigation was sufficient in the circumstances. It held that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the band of reasonable responses, and that the arrangements for the disciplinary hearing and appeal did not make the dismissal unfair.