Mrs J Mitchell v Aberdeenshire Council — 2026

Mrs J Mitchell worked as a cleaner for Aberdeenshire Council at Fraserburgh North school from 17 April 2017. After sickness absence in 2024, she was placed into attendance management. The tribunal found that a conversation on 8 October 2024, including comments that she was being 'paranoid' and 'a bit more paranoid', arose in the context of a discussion about completing cleaning tasks within working hours and was intended to reassure her about work concerns, not to refer to ADHD or anxiety as such.

The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at any material time. It found no sufficient evidence that she had ADHD, and the material before it did not establish clinical anxiety as distinct from symptoms of stress and worry reacting to events at work and the concerns raised in 2021. It relied in particular on the GP records, the fit notes describing 'stress at work', and the occupational health report of 11 March 2025, which recorded no underlying mental health condition and that she was engaging in day-to-day activities independently.

Because the claimant was not shown to be disabled, the claims of direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed. The tribunal also found that the cleaning-area allocation was a general practice based on the BICS methodology and applied to cleaners generally, and that the evidence did not show a substantial disadvantage linked to any impairment. On the harassment claim, it held that the October 2024 remarks were not unwanted conduct related to disability and did not have the required effect.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The claimant resigned on 14 March 2025, saying that the reasons included the timing of attendance management, delay in dealing with her grievance, and a remark in an OH report about adjustments being at management's discretion. The tribunal found none of those matters amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence: the grievance had not been ignored, the attendance-management meeting was reasonably delayed until the school term restarted, and the OH comment was made by an independent provider rather than the respondent. The unlawful deduction claim also failed because the tribunal found that no deduction had been made; the respondent had overpaid her for April 2025 and sought repayment of that overpayment. No award was made.