Claimant v The Sheffield College

The tribunal found that comments made by Ms Parr on 31 March 2023 (that the claimant and Mr Taff needed to work on their communication and 'at least you are both looking at each other now') were not unwanted conduct and were not related to disability, but were about improving the working relationship. The claimant did not object at the time and left the meeting smiling. Comments about working from home to Sally Johnson and Bethan Hyatt were not unwanted as the claimant had been open about her autism and RAP with colleagues. While some comments were related to disability, it was not reasonable for them to have the proscribed effect given the context and the claimant's openness.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged detriments were significantly influenced by the protected acts (the grievance of 28 January 2024 and the tribunal claim). The WhatsApp message of 7 February 2024 was not a detriment but a supportive gesture about the claimant's career. The Valencia comment on 22 February was a detriment (a highly inappropriate joke) but was not influenced by the grievance. Passing Screen Yorkshire responsibilities to Mr Taff was not a detriment and was for operational reasons. Keeping the claimant separated from Mr Taff was not a detriment and was due to their breakdown in relationship. Brief access to data on the laptop on 10 January 2025 was on advice of the DPO and HR and not a detriment, and was not influenced by the protected acts.