Claimant v Barts Health NHS Trust

Issue 1 (refusal of afternoon break January 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis due to long delay, claimant's knowledge of rights and access to union support, and prejudice to respondent from memory fade.

Issue 2 (rejection from training February 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issue 1.

Issue 3 (refusal to complete Barts ability form February 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issue 1.

Issue 4 (sent home rather than light duties February 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issue 1.

Issue 5 (told not on disability pathway February 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issue 1.

Issue 6 (refusal to redeploy to non-Covid ward March 2020): Struck out as out of time by 15-18 months. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issue 1.

Issue 7 (pre-screening role June 2020): Claim failed on facts. Tribunal found the pre-screening work was not too difficult for the claimant as a Band 2 employee and was well within her capabilities. Claimant accepted she could not explain the connection between the treatment and her disability.

Issue 8 (overburdened with work): Claimant withdrew allegation that Ms O'Connell acted deliberately. No specific occasions identified. Claimant confirmed when cross-examining Ms O'Connell that she was not putting that the reason was disability. Claim effectively not pursued.

Issue 9 (overtime refusal): Claim factually unsustainable. Accurate transcript of covert recording showed Ms O'Connell did not say what claimant alleged. Ms O'Connell explained virtualisation process and did not exclude claimant from overtime. Claimant accepted Ms O'Connell did not refuse overtime.

Issue 10 (delay in job description): Withdrawn by claimant during cross-examination of Ms O'Connell.

Issue 11 (wrong job description): Withdrawn by claimant during cross-examination of Ms O'Connell.

Issue 12 (no response to emails June 2021): Claim against Mr Islam not pursued; claimant said he 'probably made a mistake and forgot'. As to Ms O'Connell, no evidence from which tribunal could conclude disability was a material influence. Burden of proof did not shift to respondent.

Issue 13 (barred from online meetings): Withdrawn by claimant after contemporaneous emails showed both meetings were cancelled.

Issue 14 (taken off training March/April 2021): Withdrawn by claimant during cross-examination of Mr Islam.

Issue 15 (excluded from post room duties March 2021): Withdrawn by claimant during cross-examination of Mr Islam.

Issue 16 (queries redirected to claimant June 2021): No less favourable treatment found. Ms O'Connell treated claimant the same as other team members. Claimant had no evidence that Ms O'Connell treated her less favourably than others, only an assumption.

Issue 17 (delay in sickness outcome letter April-August 2021): No evidence from which tribunal could conclude failure to send letter was influenced by disability or that claimant was treated less favourably. Tribunal found it was a straightforward administrative oversight at a busy time, not deliberate withholding.

Issue 18 (refused working from home April 2021): Misconceived claim. Claimant was not treated less favourably because of disability; she was treated the same as everyone else until the respondent acceded to her request within a day or two and then permitted her to work from home full-time.

Issue 19 (meeting not completed July 2021): Claim failed on facts. Tribunal found Ms Walshe had read the documents before the meeting and her opening remark deferred to Mr Rahman to lead the conversation. Meeting ended reasonably when the matters for discussion had been exhausted.

Issue 20 (delay in grievance October 2021-June 2022): Claim succeeded. Exceptionally long delay (8 months) and total failure to deal with grievance. Tribunal found burden of proof shifted to respondent due to: complete failure to deal with grievance; no records of decision-making; failure to call HR witnesses; Mr Logan's contrast of this grievance with 'potentially more serious' complaints; his omission of mental health complaints from witness statement. Respondent failed to provide satisfactory non-discriminatory explanation. Tribunal inferred Mr Logan had stereotypical assumption that grievances about mental health support were inherently less serious than other complaints, which influenced why grievance was not dealt with.

Issue 21 (delay in communicating decision December 2021): Only 3 working days between meeting and decision being communicated. Nothing unreasonable about that delay given context of winter and Covid pandemic. No detriment, and no evidence of less favourable treatment because of disability.

Issue 22 (refused working from home December 2021): Claim failed on facts. Claimant was told she could not work from home full-time but could work 50% from home and 50% in office, which was in line with OH advice. The reasonable adjustment was made as recommended by OH.

Issue 23 (refusal to lighten workload February 2020): Struck out as out of time. Time ran from February 2020 when claimant stopped working as HCA. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issues 1-6.

Issue 24 (refusal to adjust sickness trigger points February 2020): Struck out as out of time. Claimant's own case was trigger points ought to have been adjusted in February 2020; time runs from then. Tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable basis for same reasons as Issues 1-6.