Claimant v B

Claimant alleged unfavourable treatment because of inability to keep up with workload and sickness absence arising from PTSD, depression, anxiety. Tribunal found claimant was not disabled by PTSD. Claimant's performance issues arose not from disability but from failure to engage, focus on grievance against colleague X, and mistrust of employer. Respondent made significant reasonable adjustments on return to work. Where treatment was unfavourable and arose from disability (e.g. attendance warnings due to disability-related absence), it was justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (maintaining acceptable absence levels, performance standards, information flow, due diligence). Claimant received extensive support before performance management commenced 7.5 months after return.

Claimant alleged respondent failed to reduce workload, provide written guarantee of no contact with colleague X, transfer to different role, pay full sick pay, and other adjustments. Tribunal found most alleged PCPs were not established; claimant's workload was already substantially reduced; the demand for a written guarantee of no contact with X was not supported by medical evidence and was impractical given collaborative working environment; transferring to another role was not reasonable as no suitable vacancy arose and claimant could not identify alternatives; full sick pay is not a reasonable adjustment per O'Hanlon; and respondent authorised benefit payments promptly once aware of obligation. Respondent had already made extensive adjustments including phased return, reduced workload, flexible working from home, and regular support meetings.