Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

The Claimant confirmed during the hearing that she had not been dismissed and withdrew the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. The complaint was subsequently dismissed upon withdrawal.

The Tribunal found the Respondent failed to adjust the sickness absence trigger point for the Claimant. Occupational Health had repeatedly recommended increasing the trigger, and the Respondent's own policy envisaged this adjustment. Doubling the trigger to 16 days would have had a real prospect of removing the disadvantage and was reasonable. The Tribunal dismissed claims relating to physical features of the new office (heating, noise, stairs, distance to washroom) and home working, finding no substantial disadvantage or that the adjustments would not have been reasonable given the prisoner-facing nature of the role.

The Tribunal found the Claimant was subjected to unfavourable treatment (the improvement warning) because of something arising from her disability (sickness absence due to fatigue, a symptom of CFS/ME). The warning put her at risk of further action and caused anxiety. The Respondent failed to justify the treatment: although it had legitimate aims (maintaining a functional workforce, efficient service delivery, managing public money, fairness), the means were not proportionate. The Respondent should have adjusted the trigger point or exercised discretion not to issue the warning, as its own policy envisaged.