: R McPherson D Frew Mrs K Beaton v Represented by:10 Mr A Beaton - Husband B & Q Limited — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 on the basis of untreated rheumatoid/psoriatic arthritis, accepting that the condition could significantly affect day-to-day activities when not controlled by medication. It accepted the respondent would have known of any disability from the October 2020 occupational health report if disability was established. The section 19 indirect discrimination claim was withdrawn during clarification and was not determined.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably because of disability. It held that the key reason she was not treated as clinically extremely vulnerable was that she did not provide the shielding letter or GP letter the respondent said it required, and it accepted that other employees treated as CEV had provided that kind of medical evidence. The section 15 claim also failed because the tribunal did not find unfavourable treatment on the facts; the claimant remained absent, received furlough and then sickness payments under policy, and the respondent's actions were not found to be because of disability-related effects.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found no identified PCP putting the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and no failure by the respondent to take reasonable steps. It accepted that the respondent discussed a range of options, including checkout work with screens, out-of-hours work, back-of-house phone work, and a possible transfer, and found that the main barrier was that the claimant would not come into the store for the discussion and assessment needed to implement any adjustment.

The harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that the wrong risk assessment template being sent twice, absence management, and related communications did not amount to unwanted conduct with the requisite purpose or effect, and that although the grievance was a protected act, no detriment was shown to have followed because of it.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no repudiatory last straw. It held that the respondent was trying to keep the claimant in work and to resolve the impasse, that the grievance outcome and record-keeping criticisms were not enough to justify resignation, and that the claimant resigned on 11 October 2021 without succeeding in her appeal. The claim under s.13 ERA 1996 for unlawful deductions from wages was also dismissed because the payments made were found to follow the furlough and absence arrangements, and digital payslips were not an unlawful deduction issue.