Ms L O’Hara v The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and 3 others — 2026

The claimant, an Experienced Keeper employed by The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland from 29 April 2024 until her resignation on 2 February 2025, brought complaints arising from protected disclosures, disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and automatic constructive unfair dismissal. The respondent accepted that the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability by reason of ADHD throughout her employment, but the tribunal considered separately when the respondent knew or ought to have known of the condition and any related disadvantage.

The tribunal found that the claimant had made some protected disclosures. These included her repeated concerns about ladder safety and specified reports about a hole under the gibbon enclosure fence, an unlocked door leading to a drop, missing shingle in the gibbon public viewing area, an unsecured floorboard, certain animal-welfare concerns, and alleged breaches of employment-law obligations. Other alleged disclosures were not accepted as protected disclosures. The protected disclosure detriment complaint failed because none of the proven detriments was found to have been on the ground that protected disclosures had been made.

The Equality Act claims all failed. The direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found no alleged act amounted to less favourable treatment because of disability. The indirect discrimination complaint failed because the PCPs either were not established, did not create the necessary disadvantage, were objectively justified, or were out of time. The reasonable adjustments complaint failed although some PCPs, including the strict 8.00am start time, use of the dynamic rota, cleaning routines, and unstructured identification training, were found to cause substantial disadvantage; the tribunal found the respondent either lacked the required knowledge before 30 August 2024, made reasonable adjustments, or was not required to make further adjustments.

The tribunal also dismissed the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim, finding that the allegations were variously unsupported, not unfavourable treatment, not because of something arising from disability, objectively justified, or out of time. The harassment complaint was dismissed because earlier allegations, particularly against Ms Valles, were time-barred and not just and equitable to determine, and later allegations did not meet the statutory test. The victimisation complaint failed although the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts on 11 October 2024, 5 November 2024, 17 December 2024, and in her 27 January 2025 grievance; it found no pleaded detriment occurred because of those protected acts.

The claimant’s automatic constructive unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that she resigned after the further extension of probation and proposed move to another department, but found she had not shown that any protected disclosure caused a breach of mutual trust and confidence or that protected disclosures were the sole or main reason for dismissal. Because all complaints were dismissed, the tribunal made no remedy award.