Claimant v Echoes Ecology Ltd

The tribunal found no evidence the claimant was treated differently from anyone else in comparable circumstances. Allegations included restriction of email access during sick leave, exclusion from Christmas party, and non-payment of bonus. All employees were treated the same; no bonus was paid to anyone; the exclusion was based on understanding claimant suffered agoraphobia and found return to work overwhelming, not her disability per se.

Tribunal found five allegations of discrimination arising from disability all failed. The alleged disadvantageous treatment (email restriction, Christmas exclusion, explanations about lighting adjustments, decline in mental health, lack of support on return) either did not amount to unfavourable treatment, was objectively justified (email access during sick leave was to avoid stress), or the respondent lacked knowledge that actions arose from disability consequences.

Three allegations of harassment failed. Incident on 30 April 2024 during office reorganisation was unrelated to disability but about method of moving desks. Request to turn lights back on by colleague was unwanted but not reasonable to have prohibited effect. Explanation about lighting limits and contact during ACAS process did not have purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating intimidating environment.

All three victimisation claims failed for same reasons as direct discrimination claims. Email restriction was not a detriment; Christmas exclusion was not because claimant carried out protected acts but due to understanding she had agoraphobia and found December return overwhelming; no bonus was paid to any staff, not just claimant.

Tribunal found duty engaged by first PCP (open plan office) but respondent complied by paying for glasses tint, allowing lights off where possible, relocating desk to window. Requested adjustment (lights off completely all the time) was unreasonable as it disadvantaged other staff. Other PCPs either not applied, or respondent lacked knowledge of disadvantage, or duty not engaged during sick leave absence from July 2024 onwards.

Tribunal found claimant did not validly resign on 12 February 2025 as claimed, only communicating resignation on 21 February 2025 when ET1 was served. More fundamentally, there was no repudiatory breach by respondent. Looking at facts as whole, respondent made every effort to accommodate claimant. No unlawful discrimination found, so no discrimination could have influenced any breach. Alleged 'last straw' matters (bonus, ACAS contact) did not constitute breaches.