Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office

Tribunal found claimant has disabilities (depression, anxiety, chronic lower back pain, repetitive strain injury) but not right foot pain as disability. All discrimination claims failed on facts — no less favourable treatment, no breach of duty, no harassment established.

Claimant argued various PCPs including hot desk policy, workload allocation, annualised hours policy disadvantaged her. Tribunal found respondent made extensive adjustments and did not fail in its duties. Adjustments were in place and reviewed; alleged breaches not established.

Claimant alleged multiple incidents of harassment by managers, particularly Beverley Marritt. Tribunal found no conduct with purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating hostile environment. Incidents either did not occur as alleged or, where they did, were not harassment when considered under s.26(4) EqA 2010.

Claimant relied on protected acts including prior ET claim, grievances, and complaints. Tribunal found alleged detriments (removal from duties, PSU investigation, disability leave, refusal of development opportunity) were not because of protected acts but for legitimate operational or safeguarding reasons.

Claimant alleged less favourable treatment re desk allocation, workload, TOIL vs overtime, PSU investigation, disability leave. Tribunal found no less favourable treatment; comparators not appropriate or circumstances materially different. Treatment not because of disability.

Claimant alleged PCPs (hot desk policy, annualised hours, requirement to walk to interview rooms) put her at disadvantage. Tribunal did not uphold claims; PCPs either not applied as alleged, or justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (space use, staff shortages, detainee management).