Members: Mr IC Macfarlane Ms M McAllister Mrs Linda M Gallacher v Represented by:15 Mrs C Greig Solicitor Abellio ScotRail Limited — 2018

The claimant, Mrs Linda M Gallacher, worked for the respondent and its predecessor from 3 December 2007 and later held senior roles in the Customer Experience Directorate. The tribunal found that 2016 saw increasing tension between the claimant and Ms Jacqueline Taggart over salary, on-call cover, and the recruitment of Ms Joanne Ferguson. It also found that the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 from April 2016 in relation to depression, and from late November 2016 in relation to menopausal symptoms, although the medical position and the claimant's own understanding of disability evolved over time.

The tribunal found that the claimant went off sick in November 2016, returned on a phased basis in January 2017, and was supported by Ms Taggart with working from home, restricted duties, and a proposed occupational health referral. It accepted that by March 2017 the relationship between the claimant and Ms Taggart had broken down. After consultation with senior HR and finance colleagues, Ms Taggart concluded that the claimant should leave the business because the trust and confidence between them had broken down irretrievably. The claimant was told at the April 2017 meeting that she was to be exited from the business, and her employment ended on 13 May 2017 with nine weeks' pay in lieu of notice.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected the case that the dismissal was because of disability or because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found that Ms Taggart did not hold a negative view of the menopause, that the claimant's difficulties with on-call and recruitment predated the period when the tribunal found her menopausal symptoms met the statutory test, and that the issues between the claimant and Ms Taggart did not arise because of disability. Although the tribunal accepted that the respondent knew some facts about the claimant's health and absence, it held that neither Ms Taggart nor the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled during the relevant period. The tribunal also rejected the indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments arguments, finding no established group disadvantage from the alleged PCP and concluding that the proposed adjustments were not reasonable in the circumstances and would not have avoided the dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the sex and age discrimination claims for broadly similar reasons. It accepted that menopause is linked to sex and age in a general sense, but did not find that the claimant was dismissed because she was menopausal or because of her sex or age, and it did not accept that the alleged PCP disadvantaged women or people in the claimant's age group. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal held the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence between two senior managers at a critical time for the business, and it held that the absence of a formal procedure or appeal did not make the dismissal unfair in the particular circumstances. Because the case was decided on liability only and all claims were dismissed, no award was made.