Miss Charlie McKechan v Swissport GB Limited — 2026

The Tribunal accepted that Miss Charlie McKechan was disabled by anxiety at all material times. It found that her section 15 discrimination claim, her complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, and her disability-related harassment complaint were not well-founded and dismissed them. The judgment records no financial award.

Miss McKechan’s employment ended on 21 October 2024 following a probation review on 17 October. The Tribunal found that 14 occasions of lateness, three days of non-disability-related absence for bronchitis, and operational incidents on 21 June and 22 August 2024 were each significant causes of the dismissal. It did not accept Mr Jowett’s evidence that the two operational incidents were the only effective cause, but found that the Respondent had discounted absences related to disability.

For the section 15 claim, the Tribunal accepted that on 24 May 2024 Miss McKechan told a supervisor that she had overslept because of mirtazapine, which she took for anxiety. It nevertheless found that her lateness did not arise in consequence of her disability. It relied on the absence of a pattern across early, daytime and evening shifts, the fact that most instances involved seven or eight minutes, the circumstances of her commute, and her failure to link the lateness to disability at the probation meeting despite discussion of disability-related sickness absence. The bronchitis absence and the two operational incidents also did not arise from disability. The section 15 claim therefore failed, and the Tribunal did not determine the Respondent’s justification defence.

The reasonable-adjustments complaints concerning fixed start times and the rotating shift pattern failed because Miss McKechan did not establish that those arrangements made her groggy or more likely to be late. The Tribunal also found no evidential basis for concluding that anxiety made her likely to require more sickness absence; in any event, the Respondent had discounted disability-related absences. Her references to medication, together with her indication on a return-to-work form that she did not require an occupational-health referral or reasonable adjustments, did not give the Respondent knowledge of the alleged disadvantages.

The Tribunal found that standing at kiosks was usual practice rather than a formal requirement. Although Miss McKechan said on 17 August 2024 that she was going to faint, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that she experienced dizziness creating the alleged substantial disadvantage. It also considered that if she were experiencing anxiety or a panic attack to the point of feeling faint, she would probably have needed to stop work and recover rather than continue working from a seat.

On harassment, the Tribunal found that Ms Ferreira Mendes did not say that “everyone has anxiety”; she said words to the effect that many people experienced anxiety differently and that the Respondent employed other people with anxiety. The words actually used were unwanted and related to disability, but were not said for the purpose of violating Miss McKechan’s dignity or creating the prohibited environment. The Tribunal found that Ms Ferreira Mendes was trying to be supportive and that it was not reasonable for the words to have the prohibited effect.