Claimant v User Testing Limited

The tribunal found the respondent's persistent failures to make reasonable adjustments, combined with the conduct of XF and GAC, breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. On 10 September 2024, XF and Ms Cupp failed to respond appropriately to the claimant's pleas that the job was 'running her into the ground.' This constituted the last straw. The claimant resigned in response to this repudiatory breach and there was no potentially fair reason for the dismissal.

The tribunal found the constructive dismissal to be unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 as there was no potentially fair reason for the respondent's repudiatory breach of contract leading to dismissal.

The tribunal inferred from the respondent's knowledge of the claimant's ME, the pattern of short-notice demands, proximity to her requests for rest, and immediate replacement that the respondent deliberately set the claimant up to fail because of her disability. The respondent treated her less favourably than a hypothetical comparator without ME.

GAC regularly interrupted the claimant, spoke over her, excluded her by speaking Spanish in meetings, made excessive last-minute demands, and told her not to 'take it personally.' He treated junior female colleagues similarly. The tribunal found that, in the absence of alternative explanation, GAC had a dismissive attitude to women and treated the claimant less favourably than a male comparator would have been treated.

The respondent applied PCPs requiring unreasonably high workloads, work during leave/sickness, and inadequate resources. These placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage due to her ME. The respondent knew or ought to have known of this disadvantage. Despite repeated pleas, the respondent failed to make any adjustments such as managing her workload, providing an adapted chair, a quiet rest space, or a parking space.

The tribunal found that the unfavourable treatment did not arise in consequence of the claimant's disability but arose because of her disability itself. This claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was therefore unsuccessful.

The claimant asserted a claim for outstanding notice pay but this was not addressed in the tribunal's decision at this liability hearing.

While indirect disability discrimination was pleaded in the claim form, the tribunal confined its consideration to matters addressed in submissions and did not make findings on this claim.