Member L J Taylor Tribunal Member R McPherson S Caughman v Echoes Ecology Ltd — 2025

The claimant worked as a consultant ecologist from 3 April 2023. She relied on disability, with the respondent conceding that ADHD met the Equality Act definition and the claimant also referring to autism, complex PTSD and agoraphobia. The evidence described a series of adjustments and reviews through late 2023 and 2024, including private meetings with the directors, a desk lamp, payment for tinted lenses, relocation of her desk near the window, headphones, a Wellness Action Plan, and later a colour-coded system for reporting whether she was green, yellow, amber or red.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the open-plan office, overhead lighting and noise put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that the duty was engaged. It found that the respondent had already made reasonable adjustments and that no further step was shown to be both identified and reasonable. It rejected the alleged PCPs about communication, fit notes, reduced hours and pay, and personal devices on the facts found.

On discrimination arising from disability and direct discrimination, the tribunal held that locking the claimant out of work email while she was off sick did not amount to a detriment. It found that the exclusion from the December 2024 Christmas night out was treatment arising from disability because the respondent thought she was unfit to attend and wanted to be exempt from social gatherings, but the exclusion was objectively justified. The alleged lighting comment was not proved, and the direct discrimination complaint also failed because the claimant was treated the same as others regarding email access and the 2024 bonus.

The harassment allegations failed. The desk-moving dispute in April 2024 was found to be about how best to reorganise the office, not conduct related to disability; the light-switch request from a colleague and LCD's explanation about lighting limits did not have the required purpose or effect under s26; and the communications during ACAS early conciliation and after the alleged resignation were held to be practical work-related contact, not harassment. The victimisation claim also failed because the alleged detriments were not shown to be because of protected acts.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant did not resign on 12 February 2025 by her ACAS correspondence and that no resignation was communicated to the respondent until after the ET1 was served on 21 February 2025. In any event, it found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and no discriminatory conduct sufficiently influencing any breach. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims in full and recorded no award.