Claimant v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs (completing external work placements and attending meetings in person) were not in fact PCPs applied by the Respondent. PCP A was controlled by the University, not the Trust. PCP B was not a practice as meetings were intended to be online with only two exceptions. Even if the PCPs existed, the Respondent did not have sufficient control over parking at Bolton or placement allocation to make the suggested adjustments reasonable, and the Respondent lacked knowledge of disadvantage regarding home visits at Prestwich and in-person meeting attendance.
Withdrawn by claimant on the morning of the fourth day of the hearing. A separate judgment dismissing on withdrawal was promulgated.
Facts
The claimant was a trainee clinical psychologist with ulcerative colitis requiring an ileostomy and stoma. She undertook a three-year doctorate programme involving placements arranged by the University of Manchester at NHS trusts including the respondent. She complained about lack of disabled parking at Bolton placement and the requirement to do home visits (without access to disabled toilets) at Prestwich placement, and being required to attend two performance management meetings in person rather than remotely. She went on long-term sick leave in July 2023 due to work-related stress.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the alleged PCPs did not exist: placement arrangements were controlled by the University not the Trust, and the default position was for meetings to be held remotely with only two exceptions made for specific reasons. Even if the PCPs existed, the respondent lacked sufficient control over parking facilities at other NHS trusts and placement allocation to make the suggested adjustments reasonable. The respondent also lacked knowledge of the specific disadvantages regarding home visits and in-person meeting attendance.
Practical note
In tripartite training arrangements involving multiple organisations, tribunals will carefully examine which organisation actually controls each aspect of the training before attributing reasonable adjustment duties, and employers cannot be expected to make adjustments over facilities or processes they do not control.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2400168/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Trainee clinical psychologist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No