Claimant v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

The tribunal found that the Respondent did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. None of the individual matters relied upon by the Claimant, nor taken collectively, amounted to or contributed to such a breach. The Claimant was therefore not dismissed and the unfair dismissal claim failed.

The tribunal found that the Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 for the period 11 February 2021 to 10 January 2022. For the period from 11 January 2022 onwards (when disability was conceded), the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of disability. The complaints at 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 all failed.

The Respondent conceded disability from 11 January 2022. The tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled for the earlier period (11 February 2021 to 10 January 2022), and in any event the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know she was disabled in that period. All section 15 complaints (6.1.8 through 6.1.24) failed on their facts or because the treatment was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

The tribunal found that the Claimant failed to establish group disadvantage for persons sharing her disability in relation to the PCPs at 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 (and the additional PCP regarding Case Manager duty only being done in the office from 3 March 2022). The complaints failed at this threshold stage.

The tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled until 11 January 2022 and the Respondent had no knowledge before then. For the period after 11 January 2022, the tribunal found either that no substantial disadvantage was established, or that the Respondent had made reasonable adjustments (working from home, phased return, reduced hours, variation of duties), or that the steps contended for were not reasonable. All complaints based on PCPs at 8.2.1 through 8.2.5 failed.

The tribunal found that the alleged comments by Ms Rowley (complaints 9.1.1 through 9.1.7) either did not occur, or were not unwanted conduct, or did not relate to disability, or did not have the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal considered the nature of the longstanding friendly relationship between the Claimant and Ms Rowley and the frank, informal culture of the team.

The Claimant alleged that Ms Duljeet and Ms Ianetta walked past her house on 25 May 2023 and spoke in raised voices to intimidate her. The tribunal found on the facts that this did not occur as alleged and that there was no detriment or causal link to the protected act of bringing the tribunal claim.