Claimant v Capital City College Group

The tribunal found the respondent applied a PCP of requiring employees to work on site. This placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage as she could not commute due to dyspnoea. Allowing work from home would have alleviated this. The respondent failed to make this reasonable adjustment from 14 March 2022. The respondent did not adequately explore whether the claimant's duties could be performed remotely or with minimal on-site presence, despite evidence she had worked successfully from home previously.

The claimant's inability to commute arose from her disability (dyspnoea). Subjecting her to the sickness absence procedure without first trying reasonable adjustments was unfavourable treatment. The respondent failed to show this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The procedure was escalated rapidly from Level 1 to Level 3, causing stress, without exploring work from home options. Dismissal could not be justified for the same reasons.

Capability was a potentially fair reason. However, dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. The claimant had worked from home successfully after students returned in March 2021. The respondent took a rigid all-or-nothing approach, did not properly analyse whether duties could be done remotely, did not wait for updated medical evidence, rushed the dismissal process, and did not explore the claimant's offer at appeal to attend 1-2 days per week.

The claimant was contractually entitled only to half pay once she had exhausted six months' full sick pay. Payment of full pay from April to September 2022 was an administrative error. The subsequent deduction was permitted by contract and legislation as recovery of an accidental overpayment. Although the tribunal found the claimant should have been allowed to work from home, the wages claim was assessed purely on contractual terms.