member S Currie Tribunal member N Elliot Ms M MacKay v -15 Advocate [Instructed by: Messrs Ammar Anwar and Co] Taylor Wimpey UK Limited — 2022

The claimant began work for the respondent in October 2017 and later moved into a temporary customer relations manager role. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, post-viral fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and FUS in autumn 2019, and the respondent accepted that she was disabled at all material times. The claimant also alleged underpayment, but that claim was withdrawn.

The tribunal rejected the direct disability discrimination case. It found that the 18 December 2019 meeting about a floating sales executive role, the handling of the grievance, the February 2020 discussions, the calls and emails, the post-24 May 2020 working arrangements, and the 29 June 2020 telephone discussion were reasonable management actions and were not because of disability. It also rejected the harassment claim and the victimisation claim, finding that the conduct complained of was not related to disability or, in the case of victimisation, was not caused by the protected act.

The only substantive success was the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that, after the ergonomic assessment of 11 February 2020, the respondent should have verified that the order included the specialist keyboard, specialist mouse, laptop stand and headset. The keyboard, mouse and laptop stand were eventually delivered on 18 June 2020, but the headset was not supplied before employment ended. The chair claim failed because the respondent had acted reasonably in ordering and chasing it, and the second-chair claim failed because the claimant was working from home only and had not yet needed a second chair.

The reasonable adjustments claims were out of time on their face, but the tribunal allowed them to proceed because it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no material breach of contract, no sufficient breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and in any event held that the claimant had delayed too long before resigning on 31 August 2020. A remedy hearing was left to be fixed.