L Brown & J Burnett Mrs Marie Temporal v Represented by: Ms E Matheson - Solicitor Home Start Falkirk Ltd — 2022

The claimant brought two tribunal claims against Home Start Falkirk Ltd. In the first, presented on 29 December 2022, she alleged disability discrimination including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment. In the second, presented on 14 August 2023, she alleged constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation. The tribunal found the claimant had psoriatic arthritis and the respondent accepted that she was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal found that the 12 May 2022 caseload meeting did not double the claimant's workload: it accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant's list reduced from 16 families to 12. It also rejected the argument that Mr Hemfrey had been appointed to an administrative post; the tribunal found there was no vacancy and that his title was changed to reflect increased duties. The tribunal further found the claimant's attendance at family groups and Fun Days fell within the nature of her role. The direct discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found the respondent did not require the claimant to do tasks contrary to her fit notes. It accepted that the claimant was accommodated to work from home, that requests to attend venues were discussed with her in advance, and that where access problems arose the request was withdrawn. The tribunal also found the July 2022 occupational health referral was based on the respondent's understanding of the position at the time, not a misrepresentation linked to disability, and it found that the alleged 14 July 2022 remark that she had been hired for a job she could not do had not been made.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found the respondent had taken reasonable steps in response to the claimant's mobility difficulties. It accepted that the claimant was allowed to work entirely from home for a period, that her duties were adjusted around access to venues, that the respondent discussed stair and incline access with her, and that a desk and footrest were provided or agreed after the ergonomic assessment. It held that no properly defined PCP was proved for the alleged failure to arrange occupational health or for the complaint about stress-related links, and the reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The tribunal also held that alleged acts before 20 July 2022 in case 4108555/2022, and before 15 May 2023 in case 4104300/2023, were time barred.

On harassment, the tribunal found that several alleged incidents were not proved or had been withdrawn. It accepted that Ms Hemfrey asked on 25 July 2022 whether the claimant was registered disabled, but held that the comment was made in the context of gathering information and did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted the claimant had done protected acts by raising a grievance, notifying ACAS, and presenting an Equality Act claim, but found the alleged detriments were not because of those acts. On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent's grievance handling did not amount to a repudiatory breach, that the claimant continued to engage with appeal and occupational health arrangements after the grievance outcome, and that she therefore affirmed the contract before resigning on 15 June 2023. It dismissed the claim in its entirety.