Claimant v Spire Healthcare Limited

The tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know the claimant was likely to be placed at substantial disadvantage by not receiving interview questions in advance. The claimant only mentioned her learning difficulty during the fifth question of the second interview, too late for adjustments to be made. Even if knowledge had existed, providing questions in advance would not have been a reasonable adjustment given the need to assess genuine knowledge and experience for a patient-safety role.

Although the tribunal found a prima facie case that the claimant's need for time to process information (arising from disability) caused the unfavourable treatment, the respondent successfully showed the decision was in no sense whatsoever because of disability. The decision was based on the claimant's lack of pre-operative assessment experience, not her processing time. The tribunal accepted that the claimant could not give pre-operative assessment based answers due to lack of experience, not due to any inability arising from disability.

The tribunal found that Mrs Boylan's manner during the feedback call on 25 November 2020 was not related to disability but to the contentious nature of the call when the claimant disputed the reasons for her rejection. While the claimant felt humiliated, the tribunal did not find it reasonable for the conduct to have the requisite effect of violating dignity or creating a humiliating environment. Mrs Boylan remained professional and organisations must be able to provide genuine feedback on unsuccessful interviews without undue concern of harassment claims.