Claimant v Cabinet Office

The tribunal found that the claimant had very fixed beliefs about the absolute nature of her required adjustments and became upset with anyone who disagreed. The tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions were not unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability, or if they were, they were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims such as ensuring personal safety, managing attendance, and maintaining minimum performance levels.

The tribunal did not find that the respondent engaged in unwanted conduct relating to disability that had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal considered the claimant's perception alongside the other circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

The tribunal considered numerous alleged PCPs, physical features, and auxiliary aids. While the claimant had multiple disabilities requiring adjustments across multiple workplaces and building moves, the tribunal found that the respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal noted that adjustments were made, including working from home, ergonomic equipment, and flexible hours, and that the claimant's expectations were often absolute and inflexible rather than reasonable.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to detriments because she had done protected acts (requesting reasonable adjustments or bringing tribunal claims). The tribunal concluded that the actions complained of were not done because of the protected acts but were part of ordinary management processes or responses to the claimant's conduct and performance.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures, or if she did, was not subjected to detriment because of those disclosures. The tribunal considered complaints made to senior staff about pregnant staff rights, failure to provide contracts, bullying of disabled staff, and equality duty compliance, but found no causal link between these and any alleged detriments.