Claimant v Inverclyde Community Development Trust

Withdrawn by claimant at case management preliminary hearing on 22 July 2025 because she did not have two years' service required to bring the claim.

The tribunal found no evidence that the requirement to provide medical certificates after multiple absences was because of the claimant's disability (depression). The policy was applied because of the level of absences, not the disability itself, and had been applied to others in similar circumstances.

The tribunal found the claimant was not less favourably treated regarding hours of work. She was required to work a minimum of 20 hours to meet job targets and satisfy funders. A colleague (Ms Percival) permitted to work 16.5 hours was in materially different circumstances (serious health condition requiring adjustment). The claimant never requested less than 20 hours as a reasonable adjustment.

The tribunal found the claimant was not less favourably treated regarding workload. The increase in her caseload from 17 to 32 clients was part of a fair rebalancing across all employment support workers to address an unfair distribution. The reason was operational efficiency, not her disability.

The tribunal found no investigation into the claimant's absences occurred. To the extent her absences were considered as part of investigating a pattern of joint absences with her partner (also an employee), this was due to the impact on a small team, not because of her disability. None of her absences were stated to be related to depression.

The tribunal found the claimant was not refused a reference. The respondent issued a factual reference in accordance with longstanding company policy applicable to all employees. There was no evidence that character references were given to others or that the policy was applied differently because of the claimant's disability.