Ms A T Molina Morales v Respondent — 2026

Ms Molina Morales began employment as a Group Reservations Executive on 9 September 2024 at the Carlton Hilton, which was undergoing major refurbishment. The Respondent accepted that her asthma was a disability and that she made protected disclosures orally to Euan Brown and in writing on 20 January 2025. The Tribunal accepted that the working environment was not ideal and involved intermittent noise and occasional small amounts of dust or debris, but found that the work areas had ventilation, that temporary office moves also affected other staff, and that the third-floor office provided following her concerns had a window and was shared with another employee.

The direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the alleged incidents either did not amount to detriments or were unrelated to disability. It found that the written warning of 28 August 2025 resulted from the Claimant's refusal to attend a meeting about her home-working arrangements, communicate verbally with management, or engage with Occupational Health. It found that the dismissal on 26 September 2025 resulted from a complete breakdown in the employment relationship and the continuing refusal to communicate verbally, rather than from disability. The s.15 claim was also dismissed because the identified treatment was not unfavourable treatment caused by something arising in consequence of asthma.

The indirect disability discrimination and reasonable-adjustments claims were dismissed. The Claimant did not establish group disadvantage or provide medical evidence that dust in the Hotel worsened her asthma. The Tribunal found that the relevant workplace practices were justified as proportionate means of providing an acceptable working environment during refurbishment and enabling the Claimant to respond to group-booking issues at the Hotel. She was allowed to work from home intermittently from April 2025 and then full-time from May. The Tribunal found that the Respondent could not reasonably have known earlier that the workplace placed her at a substantial disability-related disadvantage and acted once the fit note indicated that the environment might be affecting her asthma. It also found that restricting communication to writing was not a required adjustment because verbal communication did not place her at a substantial disadvantage and breaks or postponement had been offered.

The direct religion or belief and age discrimination claims were dismissed. The Tribunal found no connection between the identified treatment and the Claimant's Catholicism and did not accept that the Respondent had lied to her. It did not accept that Stephen Williams made the alleged age-related comment, found that Euan Brown's message was an attempt to empathise rather than a comparison between the Claimant and his children, and found no evidence that her remuneration was related to age.

The disability-related harassment claim was dismissed because none of the sixteen alleged incidents was related to disability or could reasonably have had the statutory purpose or effect. The Tribunal found that the interactions concerned management of work, attempts to address the Claimant's concerns, or requests that she engage with processes concerning her refusal to communicate verbally. The victimisation claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found that the Claimant's Tribunal proceedings did not cause her dismissal; the reason was the irretrievable breakdown of the employment relationship.