Claimant v Met Office for and on behalf of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The tribunal found that Professor Endersby's comments in the 12 March 2024 briefing about 'angst' and 'a sense of proportion' related to the claimant's disability. Taking into account the claimant's previous distressing experience with office moves, anxieties about reasonable adjustments, and concerns raised by neurodiversity networks, it was reasonable for the claimant to perceive the briefing as minimising difficulties and creating 'otherness' about neurodiverse staff, thus having the proscribed effect of creating a degrading or offensive environment.

Professor Endersby's 14 March 2024 Viva Engage post criticising 'unkind' and 'inconsiderate' posts was found to relate to disability because the claimant's posts which prompted it were primarily about advocating for disabled and autistic employees regarding the floorplate move. The connection to disability could not be severed. Given the circumstances, it was reasonable for the claimant to perceive this as creating a hostile environment.

Professor Endersby's comments on 3 July 2024 about the claimant's 'personal style' and references to 'relentless hostility and negativity', and on 18 July about it not being 'fair to the exec' to work with the claimant and a 'broken relationship with the autism network' all related to the claimant's communication style as an autistic person, which Professor Endersby acknowledged could not be separated from the claimant's disability. The tribunal found these comments were personal and direct criticism by the CEO and it was reasonable for them to have the proscribed effect.

Tammy Lillie's email of 19 June 2024 threatening disciplinary action arose from the 18 June 2024 meeting and the claimant's way of communicating as an autistic person, which the respondent conceded arose from disability. The tribunal found the email was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability. The respondent failed to justify it as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring wellbeing and acceptable behaviour, as it did not appropriately balance both parties' needs and was a disproportionate response that prioritised Ms Lillie's perspective without adequately considering communication differences.

The decision to withdraw executive sponsorship of the Autism Network unless the claimant stepped down as co-lead arose from the 18 June 2024 meeting and the claimant's communication style as an autistic person. This was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability. The respondent could not justify this as proportionate: it did not strike an appropriate balance between the parties' needs, appeared to simply accept Ms Lillie's perspective, and dismissed attempts to explain communication differences. A more proportionate approach would have been a neutral, carefully planned discussion providing support and constructive feedback with proper consideration of communication differences.

Withdrawn by agreement as duplicating acts upheld as harassment or discrimination arising from disability.