Members: Gerry Coyle John Hughes X v Represented by: Ms C Freeland - Lay Representative South Lanarkshire Council — 2018

The claimant, who had psoriatic arthritis, worked for South Lanarkshire Council first in Housing and later in Money Matters. The tribunal found that before June 2014 the respondents did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that he was disabled. It relied on the claimant's own applications stating that he did not consider himself disabled, the absence of clear disclosure of psoriatic arthritis to managers, and the fact that medical material relied on by the claimant was not shown to them. On that basis, and because it was not persuaded that desk sharing, use of a pool car, or the work said to involve heavy tasks placed him at a substantial disadvantage, the reasonable adjustments claim failed under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and Schedule 8 paragraph 20.

The harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was based on statements made to the DWP in 2014, the subsequent internal fact-finding investigations, enquiries about the claimant's medical condition, and his removal from normal duties while the DWP and disciplinary issues were being dealt with. The tribunal accepted that some language used by Jackie Lawson and others was inappropriate or unprofessional, but found that it was used in the context of work-related tensions and not because of the claimant's disability. It held that the DWP statements were part of a separate process, that the investigations were not conducted with the purpose or effect of harassing the claimant, and that the missed flexible working request was a genuine oversight rather than discriminatory conduct.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied the principles from Western Excavating v Sharp and Woods v WM Car Services, asking whether the respondents' conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach or a breach of trust and confidence. It found that the respondents had acted reasonably in managing the DWP investigation, the restricted duties, the grievance process, and the disciplinary matter arising from the claimant's delay in reporting the citation. The tribunal accepted that there were delays in parts of the internal process, but accepted the respondents' explanations and found no material prejudice or fundamental breach. It held that the claimant's resignation on 15 July 2016 was not caused by conduct that entitled him to resign without notice, and it dismissed all claims. No monetary award was recorded.