Claimant v MA Business Limited

The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments regarding Adestra use. The claimant's dyslexia caused moderate to severe processing difficulties making multi-step tasks extremely difficult. The respondent knew from March 2022 that the claimant could not use Adestra and that she became very distressed attempting to do so in April 2023, yet failed to provide adequate training or alternative solutions. However, the claim regarding Excel and back-to-back meetings failed as the claimant did not establish substantial disadvantage or that the respondent applied the alleged PCPs.

The tribunal found that on 9 June 2023, Mrs Knox told the claimant and a neurodivergent colleague to 'get back in your work box' when discussing reasonable adjustments. This was unwanted conduct that related to disability and, given the claimant's neurodivergence, rejection sensitivity dysphoria, and existing anxiety about adjustments, it was reasonable for this to have the effect of violating her dignity and creating a hostile environment. The other harassment complaints regarding Mrs Knox saying adjustments were 'not work related' (not made out factually) and Ms Kitt's WhatsApp messages (not reasonable for them to have the proscribed effect) failed.

Ms Conetta's email of 12 July 2023, sent after the claimant's protected act of raising concerns on 13 June 2023, subjected the claimant to detriment by suggesting resignation was the only option without exploring alternative roles or understanding the claimant's adjustment needs. The respondent failed to meaningfully engage with how the claimant could return to work with appropriate adjustments. The other victimisation complaints (Ms Kitt's messages, grievance delay, Mr Allen's email, SAR delay) failed as they either did not amount to detriment or were not because of the protected act.

The tribunal found that seven separate complaints of direct disability discrimination all failed. The reasons for the respondent's actions were not because of the claimant's disability. For example: the reduction in communications was not established factually; misleading contract information was due to genuine confusion about term-time arrangements; Mrs Knox's guidance about adjustment requests was to help the claimant get a response; the probation form was sent to refocus the claimant on work; and adverse comments between colleagues were due to perceptions about the claimant's work output, not her disability. The tribunal applied the test in Shamoon v Chief Constable - if the reason for treatment is not disability, direct discrimination fails.