Claimant v London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant had disabilities (dyspraxia, anxiety, depression) and was placed at substantial disadvantage, the adjustments claimed (return to work interview, OH referral, sickness procedures, stress risk assessment, weekly support meetings) were not themselves reasonable adjustments or the respondent had offered them and claimant declined (e.g. weekly support meetings).
The tribunal found multiple procedural failings by the respondent (e.g. no return to work interview, delays in OH referral, failure to conduct stress risk assessment) but concluded that none amounted to less favourable treatment because of disability. In all cases, either there was no detriment, or a hypothetical comparator would have been treated the same way, or the reason was not disability.
The tribunal found that the claimant's grievance of 18 October 2021 was a protected act. Of all alleged victimisation detriments, only one succeeded: the respondent moved the claimant and her team to different management on 3 November 2021 in part as a consequence of the grievance, which amounted to victimisation and a detriment.
Withdrawn by claimant at an earlier stage in the litigation.
Withdrawn by claimant at an earlier stage in the litigation.
Facts
The claimant, an EDT Manager since 2019, had disabilities of dyspraxia, anxiety and depression. She brought grievances in 2019, November 2020 and October 2021 concerning workplace relationships and process failures. She had periods of sickness absence in early 2021 and August-September 2021. The respondent failed to follow its own procedures on return to work interviews, OH referrals, stress risk assessments, and weekly support meetings (though some were offered and declined). After the October 2021 grievance (a protected act), the claimant and her team were moved to different management without consultation.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all reasonable adjustment and direct discrimination claims, finding either no detriment or that treatment was not because of disability. Most victimisation claims failed. However, the tribunal upheld one victimisation claim: the respondent moved the claimant and her team to different management in November 2021 in part because of the October 2021 grievance, which was a protected act. The matter was listed for a remedy hearing.
Practical note
Procedural failings by an employer (missed return to work interviews, delayed OH referrals, failure to conduct stress assessments) do not automatically constitute discrimination or failures to make reasonable adjustments unless they cause substantial disadvantage not experienced by non-disabled comparators or unless reasonable adjustments were not offered or implemented; but moving an employee's team following a grievance can amount to victimisation if done because of the protected act.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3207431/2021
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- London Borough of Tower Hamlets
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Emergency Duty Team (EDT) Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No