Ms L Dillon v Mears Ltd — 2025

The tribunal found all claims not well-founded and dismissed them. It accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD and autism, but preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses where there was conflict. In particular, the audio recording of the 23 January 2025 meeting did not support the claimant’s description of that meeting; the tribunal found that the managers spoke calmly and that the claimant, rather than the managers, raised her voice and interrupted.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal held that the November 2024 grievance disclosed information tending to show a possible failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, but it was not a qualifying disclosure because the claimant did not believe, and could not reasonably have believed, that making it was in the public interest. The tribunal also found that the 23 January 2025 meeting was not a detriment and was not caused or influenced by the grievance.

On the disability discrimination claims concerning the Christmas night out, the tribunal found that the claimant was not excluded and that no individual invitations were sent to employees. It also found no evidence that any treatment was because of disability or because of something arising from disability. On reasonable adjustments, it held that the headset requirement did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage shown to arise from disability, and that although the open plan office did place her at a substantial disadvantage, the respondent complied with its duty as its knowledge developed, including by implementing or progressing the OH recommendations after the report dated 24 December 2024.

The harassment and victimisation claims were also rejected. The tribunal found insufficient evidence for the allegation of impersonation, found no harassment in relation to the Christmas event or the 23 January 2025 meeting, and found no evidential basis to connect the car damage or the meeting to the claimant’s protected acts. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no discriminatory conduct influencing any breach and, in any event, no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence; it considered that the respondent had been trying to accommodate the claimant and that the 23 January 2025 meeting was not a last straw.