L Brown & G McKay Ms S Rashid v Student Loans Company Ltd — 2025

At the outset the tribunal held that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, disability-related harassment, direct discrimination because of religion, and the flexible-working complaint had been presented out of time. It found that the last alleged act of discrimination was 10 February 2023, that ACAS early conciliation was not started until 24 October 2023, and that there was no evidential basis to extend the Equality Act time limit or to treat the flexible-working complaint as in time. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to determine those claims, and it also went on to consider them on the merits in case that approach was wrong. It found, in the alternative, that no flexible working request had been made in August 2022; the formal request it accepted was dated 21 December 2022.

On the disability claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled and that the respondent's work in the pre-assessment team was office-based with limited home-working outside peak periods. It found there was a PCP requiring most hours to be worked in the office, but held that the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage when she returned to work in January 2023 because she was no longer testing positive for covid and was fit to return. In any event, the tribunal found that allowing full-time homeworking or more than one day per week at home would not have been reasonable because the team had to meet service levels and there was limited work that could be done from home. The harassment complaint based on telephone calls on 6 and 8/10 February 2023 failed because the tribunal found the questions were ordinary absence-management and welfare questions; it accepted that the conduct was unwanted in the claimant's perception, but held that it did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26.

The direct discrimination complaint based on religion also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's request for Umrah leave was made on 17 January 2023, when annual leave in the team was already over-allocated, and that Ms Sutherland asked for further details so the request could be considered as an exception. It also found that the claimant's temporary Ramadan working-hours request was not finally decided before she went off sick on 25 January 2023, and that the complaint about being required to attend the office when she and her family had covid was not made out because the claimant returned to the office only after she was no longer testing positive and felt fit to do so. The tribunal therefore dismissed the religion discrimination claim in the alternative.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that the respondent had carried out a fair capability process: it consulted the claimant over several welfare meetings and a medical capability hearing, obtained occupational health evidence, considered redeployment and alternative roles, considered reduced hours and homeworking, and allowed an appeal. Applying the section 98 ERA fairness test and the medical-capability authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded the respondent could not reasonably be expected to wait any longer for the claimant to return to work because there was no foreseeable return date. The respondent's Rule 74(2) expenses application for £777.70, made because of the postponed February hearing, was refused.