T Lithgow and J Anderson Miss A Cracuin v British Telecommunications plc — 2024

The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled at the relevant times by reason of anxiety, depression and anaemia, but found that she had not shown that extremely painful periods met the statutory definition of disability. It found that several complaints about working arrangements, pay, bonus, and the 18 May 2023 and 16 May 2023 incidents were out of time, were not part of conduct extending over a period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

On the reasonable adjustments complaints, the Tribunal found no jurisdiction because they were out of time. It also stated that, if it had jurisdiction, the fixed-shift complaint would not have succeeded because the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was likely to be placed at the asserted disadvantage linked to anxiety and depression. The home-working and hybrid-working complaints would also have failed because the claimant had told the respondent she did not want to work from home, and when she later requested hybrid working the respondent was taking steps to arrange it before she was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for breach of the respondent's Standards of Behaviour policy because of statements made about Mr Sliman on 9 June 2023 and language used in later emails. It found no facts from which it could conclude that the dismissal, the application of the new start policy, or Mr Masood's investigation were because of disability, race, or sex, or related to those protected characteristics for harassment purposes. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the investigation concerned the claimant's language, that the claimant admitted using the language, and that the dismissing and appeal managers considered the issues before reaching their decisions.

For the race- and sex-related harassment complaints, the Tribunal found that the middle-finger complaint against Mr Sliman was out of time and that the evidence would not have shifted the burden of proof in any event. It found that Mr Masood was investigating under the respondent's procedures, that there was no predetermined outcome, and that Mr Hassan's corridor incident did not provide facts from which harassment related to race or sex could be inferred. All complaints were therefore either dismissed as not well founded or dismissed for want of jurisdiction.