P McColl and R Taggart Ms A L McVey v Represented by: T Pacey Counsel Sky UK Limited — 2024

The claimant worked for Sky UK Ltd as a Solutions Architect from 30 November 2015 until 31 December 2024. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed her by reason of redundancy after a collective consultation process, a selection exercise for the two Solutions Architects in the team, and a series of individual consultation meetings. It held that the respondent had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the overall process was reasonable under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

On disability status, the respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by reason of autism at the relevant time. The tribunal also accepted that she had an impairment of ADHD, but it held that she had not proved that ADHD, as a separate impairment, had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It found that the respondent first became aware of the claimant's list of autism and ADHD traits on 17 June 2024, when she emailed Nick Sarkissian, and rejected the claimant's case that she had disclosed the same information earlier to previous managers.

The tribunal rejected the factual basis of the direct discrimination allegations. It found that Nick Sarkissian made general team management changes for everyone, that the claimant was allocated available work on her phased return after absence, that she was not excluded from the London work event, and that her 1:1 meetings were rearranged rather than cancelled. It therefore found no prima facie case of direct disability discrimination.

The section 15 claim was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that home working arose in consequence of disability and that some of the traits listed in the claimant's 17 June 2024 email could also arise in consequence of disability, but it held that the relevant acts were not because of those matters. In particular, it found no causal link between those matters and the 2021 to 2023 performance ratings, the redundancy scoring, the dismissal, or the handling of the grievance. The tribunal also dismissed the reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination claims because no substantial or particular disadvantage was identified for the appraisal and redundancy scoring PCPs, and the proposed adjustments were either unsupported or too unspecific.

The harassment claim failed because the tribunal did not find that the alleged conduct had occurred. The victimisation claim failed even though the tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance was a protected act and that the delay to the grievance outcome, and the fact that not all complaints were dealt with under the grievance procedure, could amount to detriments. It held that those matters were not caused by the protected act, and that the claimant's agreed early finish on 18 December 2024 was not a detriment. As all complaints were dismissed, the tribunal recorded no remedy hearing and no award.