Members J Lindsay & Q Muir Ms H Rennie v Represented by: Mr D Rennie - Spouse Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2025

Ms H Rennie worked for Greater Glasgow Health Board as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist from 18 October 2004 until dismissal for capability on 7 November 2023. The tribunal accepted that she had the protected characteristic of disability by reason of dyslexia and autoimmune haemolytic anaemia. It found that the respondent had engaged with Access to Work and Occupational Health over a long period, provided equipment, software, training, supervision and phased returns, and that the claimant had gone through repeated capability stages and reviews over several years.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that Stuart Gaw honestly believed, on reasonable grounds, that the claimant could not work at Band 6 level, could not operate autonomously as required, and had not achieved the required performance despite prolonged support. The tribunal noted that the process was lengthy because of absences, shielding and the time taken to implement adjustments, and found that this did not make the procedure unfair. Redeployment had been discussed, but the claimant only sought redeployment at Band 6 level and the tribunal found that no suitable post existed.

The disability discrimination claims were rejected. For the s.13 claim, the tribunal held in the reasons section that the allegations were not time-barred because the capability process was an ongoing state of affairs, but it found no facts from which less favourable treatment because of disability could be inferred. For the s.15 claim, the tribunal found that the claimant did not prove she was blocked from coping strategies or assistive equipment, and it accepted evidence that the capability concerns were about clinical reasoning, clinical judgement and communication rather than disability-driven conduct. It held that the respondent's treatment pursued legitimate aims, including effective working practices, patient care and support for the claimant, and that the treatment was proportionate.

The s.19 indirect discrimination complaint was held to be time-barred under s.123 EqA, although the tribunal also rejected it on the facts. It found that the alleged PCPs about normal surgical masks and COVID-positive patient activity adjacent to the claimant's workspace were not established as PCPs applied by the respondent, and that the claimant was not disadvantaged as alleged. The reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20 and 21 also failed: the tribunal found no PCP or substantial disadvantage as pleaded, concluded that reasonable steps had been taken to implement Access to Work and Occupational Health recommendations, and said that additional items such as a Dictaphone, scanner or paperless tablets were not proved to have been requested or shown to have made a difference. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted she had been paid for accrued holiday at dismissal, and no remedy was awarded.