Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that approaching the claimant about returning to in-person work would be problematic due to her disabilities. The tribunal held that it was not objectively a reasonable adjustment to permit indefinite home working given the business needs of the employer and the nature of the Work Coach role, which primarily involved supporting claimants on intensive work search regimes requiring face-to-face contact. A doctor's fit note is advisory only and does not bind the employer or tribunal.

The tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that no express reference to 'sex worker' was made at the meeting of 5 August 2022. The tribunal found the investigation flawed, noting that the investigating officer used leading questions and that potential witnesses had been 'primed' by the line manager asking if they recalled the words 'sex worker' shortly after the claimant complained. Of 14 witnesses interviewed, only two recalled any reference, and many said they would have objected if they had heard it. The tribunal found memories had been implanted by the manner of the initial inquiry.

The tribunal saw nothing in the circumstances from which it could infer that the alleged 'locking out' of the claimant from her caseload on 11 May 2022 was connected to her having raised a grievance against Mrs Madhani in December 2021. The tribunal accepted on the balance of probabilities that the management of her workload was purely for operational reasons relating to meeting customer needs and diary capacity across job centres, as explained by Mrs Madhani.