Claimant v Atlas BFW Management Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant on day one of the final hearing and consented to being dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish the PCPs alleged in most instances, or that where adjustments were requested the respondent had taken reasonable steps to provide them within a reasonable timeframe. The claimant resigned before some adjustments could be fully implemented. Specific complaints at RA4, RA8, RA10, RA12, RA18 and RA19 were withdrawn.
The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence as the reasonable adjustments claims all failed. The claimant resigned when the respondent was still implementing measures and did not give adequate time for implementation of some adjustments which could not be provided immediately.
Facts
Claimant was employed from October 2019 to January 2023 as Head of Quality, Risk and Compliance for a company providing non-clinical NHS services. She was disabled by reason of bipolar disorder (conceded). She had periods of sick leave for mental health reasons in 2021 and 2022. Three occupational health reports recommended various adjustments including a Wellness Action Plan, stress risk assessment, flexible breaks, weekly meetings and other support. She resigned in November 2022 claiming the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and constructively dismissed her.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The section 15 discrimination claim was withdrawn. The reasonable adjustments claims failed because the claimant did not establish the PCPs alleged, or the respondent had made the adjustments or taken reasonable steps within a reasonable timeframe. Some complaints were withdrawn during the hearing. The constructive dismissal claim failed as there was no repudiatory breach given the failure of the reasonable adjustments claims.
Practical note
A failure to complete formal documentation of adjustments (such as a Wellness Action Plan or stress risk assessment) may not breach the duty to make reasonable adjustments if the substantive adjustments are actually provided and the employee has the practical benefit of them in their day-to-day work.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2403655/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Quality, Risk and Compliance
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor