ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001765/2025 Hearing at Glasgow on 9, 10, and March 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Tribunal Member D McDougall Tribunal Member J McCaig Shannon McAllister v Bell Building Projects Limited — 2026

Shannon McAllister brought claims against Bell Building Projects Limited for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct sex discrimination, and detriment connected with time off for dependants. The Tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims.

The Tribunal found that Ms McAllister was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time by reason of suspected ADHD, auditory processing disorder, or anxiety and depression. It found insufficient evidence that she had ADHD or auditory processing disorder at that time, or that either had the required substantial and long-term effect. Although she had experienced anxiety and had received medication since October 2024, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the condition had then lasted, or was likely to last, at least 12 months. It also found that the respondent neither knew nor could reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled.

Dismissal on 15 May 2025 was accepted to be unfavourable treatment, but the Tribunal was not persuaded that Ms McAllister's departure from work on 13 May arose in consequence of a disability. It found that the respondent's concern related particularly to her failure to inform her line manager before leaving, following an earlier instruction, and that the dismissal also followed performance concerns and complaints about mobile-phone use. In the alternative, the Tribunal found that dismissal would have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining appropriate performance, work quality, and relationships with clients and supply-chain companies after attempts over several months to address performance.

The reasonable-adjustments claim concerned an alleged requirement to undertake a heavy workload with several components. The Tribunal found that, although the core role was busy and demanding, the additional activities relied upon by Ms McAllister had been undertaken voluntarily for her development and had not been imposed as the alleged provision, criterion or practice. The claim also failed because she was not disabled at the material time and the respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of disability.

The direct sex discrimination claim arose from the handling of complaints exchanged between Ms McAllister and Zach Devlin. The Tribunal found that the respondent spoke to both employees and other colleagues, took no formal action against either employee, and did not threaten Ms McAllister with repercussions for pursuing her complaint. It found no evidence that any difference in treatment was because of sex and held that the burden of proof had not shifted.

For the time-off-for-dependants claim, the Tribunal found that Ms McAllister initially requested to work from home on 12 and 13 December 2024 while caring for her children. That request was refused, but she was granted the two days as unpaid time off. The Tribunal did not find that she was threatened with disciplinary action, subjected to undue scrutiny at the subsequent informal attendance review, told to send ill children to nursery, or grudgingly permitted to attend a medical appointment. It found no detriment imposed because she had taken time off for dependants and therefore dismissed the claim on its merits without determining the time-limit issue. No monetary remedy was awarded.