Mr B Mackie v Student Loans Company Ltd — 2026

Mr B Mackie brought disability discrimination claims against Student Loans Company Limited, where he remained employed as a student finance officer. The respondent accepted that he was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. His conditions included fibromyalgia, chronic migraine, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic depression. He withdrew his victimisation claim at the hearing, and the Tribunal dismissed it under Rule 51. The remaining claims were dismissed on their merits.

The reasonable adjustments claim concerned requirements to report sickness personally by telephone, subject to exceptional circumstances, and ordinarily to complete absence reporting and questioning during that call. During the call principally identified in the reasons as 5 June 2025, Mackie's partner initially contacted the respondent before his team leader, Ewa Wiergacz, asked to speak to him. The Tribunal found no disadvantage compared with employees who were not disabled but were too unwell to work. Mackie gave clear and detailed answers about his symptoms and questioned his manager about the policy. It also found that Wiergacz neither knew nor could reasonably have known of any disadvantage, taking account of his participation and his continuation of the discussion after saying he did not feel well enough. The duty to make reasonable adjustments was therefore not engaged.

The harassment claim concerned continued questioning and an alleged statement that hospitalisation was the only exception allowing someone else to report an absence. The Tribunal was not persuaded that continued questioning was unwanted, given Mackie's own questions and the need to obtain absence information. It found that the manager's response about hospitalisation was ambiguous when read alone, but the whole discussion did not establish that she treated it as the only exception. She had previously accepted a call from Mackie's partner when he had a migraine and was not hospitalised. Her explanation of the policy also answered a question Mackie had asked.

The Tribunal found that any unwanted conduct would have been related to disability because the discussion concerned an absence caused at least partly by disability. However, the manager's purpose was to clarify the reasons for absence and the likely return date. Both participants spoke politely and calmly. Although the Tribunal accepted Mackie's genuine perception of the call, it found that the conduct could not reasonably have the effect required by section 26. It also rejected his account of being forced or pressurised to take the call.

The section 15 claim concerned a record of discussion made by Karen Sutherland at Mackie's return-to-work meeting on 14 October 2025. Applying Shamoon, the Tribunal found that recording the fact that absence triggers had been reached caused no disadvantage; no disciplinary or other action followed beyond recording the discussion. It also found no evidence connecting the July–October absence that caused the triggers to be reached with his disabilities. The fit notes recorded stress at work. Earlier disability-related absences contributed to the totals but did not themselves approach the triggers.