Cases3200819/2023

Claimant v Perrywood Garden Centre and Nurseries Limited

25 July 2025Before Employment Judge GardinerEast London Hearing Centrein person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found none of the alleged breaches individually or cumulatively destroyed or seriously damaged the relationship of trust and confidence. The claimant's hypersensitivity to criticism, influenced by her disabilities, led her to perceive ordinary management actions as breaches. The respondent had gone to considerable lengths to make adjustments and support the claimant.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The allegation concerned refusal to allow withdrawal of resignation. The comparator (Thanapan Pennick) was in materially different circumstances. The tribunal found no evidential basis for inferring less favourable treatment because of disability. In any event, there was a non-discriminatory explanation: the claimant was clearly unhappy despite extensive support efforts.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)partly succeeded

Three allegations were made. The disciplinary warning for conduct on 12 July 2022 was discrimination arising from disability, but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (maintaining discipline and protecting Ms Freeman's health). The allegation that HR said 'it's all in your head' was not proved. The constructive dismissal allegation failed as no dismissal occurred.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal accepted two PCPs placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage (communication practices and allocating tasks on the day). However, on the specific dates alleged, the tribunal was not persuaded there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The respondent had gone to significant lengths to accommodate the claimant, though adjustments were not always possible. The ornamental trees allegation failed as disadvantage arose from dyslexia, not the disabilities relied upon.

Harassment(disability)failed

Five allegations mirrored the constructive dismissal allegations. While the treatment was unwanted, the tribunal found it did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The claimant's perception differed markedly from what would be a reasonable reaction, even considering her disabilities.

Facts

The claimant worked as a Plant Area Assistant at the respondent's garden centre from April 2018 to March 2023. She had autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression and dyslexia. She was hypersensitive to criticism and struggled with communication and last-minute changes. The respondent made extensive adjustments including a Tailored Adjustment Agreement, occupational health referrals, neurodiversity coaching, and a mediation agreement in December 2022. The claimant had difficult working relationships with various managers, particularly Megan Freeman from May 2022 onwards. On 18 March 2023 the claimant resigned, stating she could no longer work with Ms Freeman.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the respondent's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence; the claimant's perception was influenced by her hypersensitivity to criticism arising from her disabilities. Direct discrimination failed for lack of a valid comparator. Discrimination arising from disability partly succeeded regarding the disciplinary warning, but was justified. Harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims failed as the respondent had made extensive efforts to accommodate the claimant.

Practical note

Employers who make extensive reasonable adjustments and demonstrate genuine efforts to support a disabled employee may successfully defend disability discrimination claims even where the employee subjectively perceives treatment as discriminatory, if that perception is influenced by the disability itself rather than objectively unreasonable conduct.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.6Employment Rights Act 1996Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.21

Case details

Case number
3200819/2023
Decision date
25 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
9
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Plant Area Assistant
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No