ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Combined Case Numbers 4105691/2023 & 4107258/2023 Heard at Edinburgh before a full Tribunal on nd, rd, th, th, and th September 2024 with Deliberation on st October 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Tribunal Member Ms L Grime Tribunal Member Mr T Lithgow Ms T Ball v Hexarad Group Ltd — 2024

The respondent conceded that, for the material period, the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability by reason of ASD and ADHD, but not by reason of anxiety. The tribunal found that the respondent did not have actual knowledge at the material time, although it ought reasonably to have known of the disability once the claimant raised the issue in February 2023. It also found that the claimant’s anxiety evidence did not establish a separate disability within s.6 EqA.

The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal held that the claimant’s request to enable Bluetooth for her preferred noise-cancelling headphones was not a disability-related adjustment: she had already been given wired headphones, the Bluetooth request was a matter of preference, and the respondent relied on IT advice that Bluetooth could not practicably be delivered. The alternative request for a new phone/SIM and PC also failed because the claimant had been off work on sick leave from 15 February 2023, the relevant PCP was not being applied to her after that point, and the restriction of access to equipment was a response to her own expressed security concerns about possible hacking.

The victimisation and harassment complaints failed both on jurisdiction and on the merits. The tribunal held that the 7 February 2023 self-certification entry was not a protected act because it did not allege an Equality Act contravention, and that the 7 March 2023 grievance was framed as a workplace bullying complaint rather than an EqA complaint. Most of the alleged detriments and harassment allegations were time-barred, the tribunal declined to extend time, and it found no sufficient causal link between any protected act and the alleged detriments. In relation to harassment, the dismissal itself was the only act that could potentially have met the statutory effect test, but it was not conduct related to disability and the other incidents were not held to have the requisite effect in context.

The tribunal also found that the claimant lacked qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996. Her automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 was then dismissed because the 12 February 2023 email to the HR officer was held to be a hypothetical question, not a disclosure of information tending to show a qualifying matter under ss.43A-43C ERA 1996, and because the principal reason for dismissal was found to be a mutual and irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence, based on the claimant’s repeated concerns about hacking, refusal to return equipment for IT checks, and inability to participate in remote meetings, as set out in the dismissal letter. No remedies were awarded because all claims failed.