Claimant v HBOS plc

The tribunal found the respondent had made substantial adjustments over many years including lighting changes, desks, monitors, and software. The claimant's continuing complaints (e.g. about air conditioning when switched off, IT security boxes under desk) were either not reasonable to accommodate or did not place her at substantial disadvantage. The tribunal concluded no further adjustments were reasonable, especially given cost (over £47,000 spent) and the need to maintain IT security policies.

The tribunal examined multiple allegations of harassment relating to disability, including delays in adjustments, redeployment, competency comments, and refusal to allow return to Banking Consultant role. In each case, the tribunal found that while conduct may have been unwanted and related to disability, it did not objectively have the proscribed effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. The respondent dealt patiently and professionally with a complex series of adjustments over several years, and delays were due to legitimate reasons including Covid-19, supply issues, and the claimant's own conduct.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's treatment was 'because of' her disability. The respondent's decisions (not signing off as Banking Consultant, redeployment to Fraud team, eventual dismissal) were based on the history of adjustments attempted, the impasse over certain requests (IT security box, ventilation), and a genuine belief she could not return to the Banking Consultant role, not because she was disabled. The perception she did not want to return to work was based on the lengthy history of raised concerns, not her disability status.

The tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment but not 'because of something arising in consequence of disability' as alleged. The claimant argued she was dismissed because of the Bank's refusal to make reasonable adjustments. Since the tribunal found there were no further reasonable adjustments required, the 'something arising' was not established. In the alternative, if wrong, the tribunal found dismissal was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (business efficiency, cost management, IT security, sustainable performance) after all other options had been exhausted.

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, a potentially fair reason. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses: the respondent had spent years attempting adjustments first for the Banking Consultant role at Strand branch, then redeployed claimant to home-based Fraud team role which also did not work out. The claimant had multiple opportunities to discuss concerns, representation throughout, chose not to attend final meeting, and had an appeal. Despite some procedural concerns about opportunity to comment on the conclusion she did not want to return to work, overall the procedure was fair and dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances.