Claimant v Capital City College Group

The tribunal found that the respondent's operation of its Sickness Absence Policy (SAP) was reasonable throughout. At Stage 1 and Stage 2, appropriate adjustments were made and a phased return to work programme was implemented. At Stage 3, dismissal was inevitable given the claimant's failure to engage with risk assessments, refusal to consent to further occupational health referrals, and the absence of any prospect of return to work after four months of continuous absence. No further reasonable adjustments could have been made beyond dismissal at that stage.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was dismissed because of her long sickness absence record, which arose as a direct consequence of her disability (Long Covid and PTSD). However, the respondent successfully demonstrated that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring satisfactory attendance and efficient operation of student services. The tribunal found the decision to dismiss was rational, fair, and proportionate given the circumstances.

The tribunal found that Mr Hindley (the dismissing officer) was not aware of any protected acts when he made the decision to dismiss. Regarding the appeal decision by Mr Hintz, although he was aware of the claimant's grievances alleging discrimination, the tribunal found no basis to infer that his decision to uphold the dismissal was in any way influenced by those protected acts. The decisions at both stages were found to be straightforward, rational, and free from any element of victimisation.