Claimant v Genesis PR Limited

Claimant resigned on 18 July 2023 (effective 15 September 2023) due to respondent's breaches of implied term of trust and confidence. Tribunal found three matters collectively destructive of trust: failure to provide ADHD coach (breach of duty to adjust), harassment on 19 June 2023, and disproportionate imposition of Performance Improvement Plan on 17 July 2023. Respondent acted without reasonable and proper cause; these were acts of discrimination. Claimant entitled to resign without notice.

Respondent applied PCP of performance reviews without structured objectives regularly reviewed, which placed claimant (with ADHD-related difficulties in sustaining attention, organisation and prioritisation) at substantial disadvantage. Occupational health report in September 2022 recommended ADHD coaching; respondent failed to pursue this despite recommendation and availability of Access to Work funding. Failure to provide ADHD coach was breach of duty to adjust. Tribunal found this discriminatory failure contributed to constructive dismissal.

Section 15 complaint succeeded regarding introduction of Performance Improvement Plan on 17 July 2023. PIP was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (communication and time/task management issues). Respondent's aim of managing performance was legitimate but PIP was disproportionate: draft Development Plan had not been progressed; 2023 PDR objectives with regular review and ADHD coaching support would have been less discriminatory alternative. Escalation to PIP was premature and reflected impatience rather than structured support.

On 19 June 2023, Ms Straker told claimant that her failure to attend a meeting and alleged unavailability could lead colleagues to think she was disorganised or uncommitted. Conduct was related to disability and unwanted. Tribunal found comments undermining: they highlighted negative aspect of claimant's ADHD without suggesting practical steps to avoid recurrence or considering raising awareness of neurodiversity among colleagues. It was reasonable for claimant to feel dignity violated and adverse environment created. Comment was not constructive feedback.

Claim regarding Ms Straker's comments on 12 July 2023 failed. Claimant arrived late, disheveled, sweating, with dilated pupils, spoke incoherently, and later reported being sick. Ms Straker asked if claimant seemed manic and if everything was okay with her medication. Tribunal found comments were related to disability but, in context, were careful and sensitive enquiries signalling concern and support. It was unreasonable for claimant to consider they created adverse environment; comments were not intended to cause offence.

Constructive dismissal was also an act of direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. Dismissal was in response to contraventions of the Equality Act: failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment on 19 June 2023, and section 15 discrimination (disproportionate PIP) on 17 July 2023. Respondent treated claimant less favourably because of disability by discriminating against her in these ways, ultimately causing her resignation.

Section 15 complaints regarding alleged failures to manage workload, arrange risk assessment, delay OH referral, and failure to implement phased return in March 2023 failed. Tribunal found unfavourable treatment was not 'because of' things arising from disability. Claimant attributed failings to organisational/managerial shortcomings rather than anything arising from her ADHD. Conceptually the claims did not work as framed and tribunal declined to rewrite them.

Complaint that respondent failed to seek prompt occupational health referrals failed. Claimant's disclosure of ADHD diagnosis in summer 2021 was not in itself reason for referral. Tribunal found referral in September 2022 was proactive, not obviously in response to identifiable issues. Claimant failed to establish respondent had practice of not seeking timely OH referrals. Claimant chose to withhold Dr Hossain's detailed report from respondent.

Complaint regarding PCP of 'performance reviews that did not take account of claimant's previously disclosed disability' failed. Evidence limited to 2023 review. Review form allowed for narrative commentary where disability might be referenced. Claimant did not raise ADHD during review meeting. Tribunal did not infer or conclude from this single form that respondent had a practice of disregarding disclosed disability in performance reviews.