Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office

The tribunal found no basis in the facts to suggest that any of the alleged less favourable treatment occurred because of the claimant's disability. The claimant withdrew one complaint and the remainder failed at the first stage of the burden of proof test.

Three section 15 complaints succeeded: failure to implement the appeal recommendation about investigating earlier complaints (because claimant's absence meant she was overlooked), failing to allow IT access (not justified as claimant wanted to return to work and policy did not apply to her circumstances), and failing to pay correctly (conceded by respondent).

The tribunal found that most of the alleged PCPs did not meet the Ishola test - they were one-off occurrences rather than provisions, criteria or practices indicating how similar cases would generally be treated. The IT access PCP did qualify but the tribunal did not need to determine this complaint as it covered the same ground as the successful section 15 complaint.

The tribunal found no basis in the facts to suggest that the protected act (appeal letter alleging Equality Act breaches) played any part in the alleged detriments. The claimant's impression that her manager disagreed with reinstatement did not support a finding of victimisation.