Claimant v Stuart Phillpson

Tribunal found that while some conduct was unwanted and had the requisite effect on the claimant, it was not related to her disability. For example, removal from XR co-lead role and questioning about teaching activities were meant to punish her for raising issues about the investigation, not because of her disability.

The tribunal found the claimant's dyspraxia affected her short-term memory, causing persistent pronoun misuse. The finding of harassment at investigation and appeal stages arose because of this persistent misuse, which was 'something arising' from her disability. The respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments and could have used lesser measures such as mediation or not applying the 'persistency' criterion. Treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The University's PCP (guidance stating that persistently using incorrect pronouns constitutes harassment) put disabled people with short-term memory loss at a particular disadvantage. The claimant, with dyspraxia affecting memory, was more likely to persistently misgender colleagues. The PCP was not a proportionate means of achieving the aim as reasonable adjustments could have been made and lesser measures implemented.

Tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected act. While she raised concerns about a closed recruitment process disadvantaging candidates, she did not raise (expressly or by implication) that this constituted race discrimination. Her focus was on the appointee's ability to do the role, not on discriminatory aspects.