Claimant v Dr S Sukumaran and Dr S Dhall (practising in partnership as Cloister Road Surgery)

Tribunal found allegations unfounded in fact. No less favourable treatment established in relation to meeting of 7 October 2021, delays in minutes, removal from WhatsApp group, return-to-work programme issues, or grievance handling. Even if treatment established, no evidence it was because of disability.

One claim succeeded substantively (inviting claimant to formal medical capability meeting on 22 March 2022 with less than 72 hours' notice), constituting unfavourable treatment because of absence from work arising from disability, and not justified. However, struck out as presented over two years out of time with tribunal refusing to extend under just and equitable discretion. All other claims under this head failed as unfavourable treatment not demonstrated or not 'because of' absence.

Three of four PCPs not established in fact (requirements for full-time return, three-month phased return as capability process, and working from premises). Fourth PCP (advising completion of return-to-work programme at another practice) established in fact but tribunal found it probably incapable of standing as a PCP under s.20(3) as a 'one-off' act without evidence of repetition. Even if valid PCP, no substantial disadvantage or reasonable adjustment properly identified.

Tribunal found alleged conduct either not established in fact (e.g. hostile meetings, mocking of disability) or not unwanted conduct related to disability with purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating hostile environment. Standard of gravity for harassment protection not met.

Protected acts established (grievances of 11 September 2023 and appeal of 30 November 2023). Two detriments established (deficiencies in grievance and appeal processes). However, claims failed because tribunal found no detriment was done because claimant had done protected act - deficiencies would have occurred regardless of whether grievance contained discrimination allegations.

Tribunal found respondents repudiated contract by abandoning all efforts to get claimant back to work as soon as grievance commenced. Given Dr Diack's report advised claimant fit to return under phased programme, and she was disabled professional suffering ongoing financial loss and deskilling, respondents' inaction breached implied duty of trust and confidence. No affirmation found as claimant's conduct throughout grievance pointed to intention to preserve employment. Dismissal also unfair as respondents did not act reasonably.