Claimant v Imperial College Healthcare NHS

The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because of her disability in any of the alleged incidents. The claimant failed to shift the burden of proof. For example, regarding the 'shout' comment, the tribunal accepted it was simply clumsy wording by Mr McKenzie, not because of disability. Regarding requests for headsets and working from home, these were not ignored; timing and sickness absence meant adjustments were not yet needed.

The tribunal found that at no point during the claim period was the claimant actually required to work on site after her disability became long-term (from 4 October 2023 onwards). She was either on long-term sick leave or would have been on a phased return working from home. The substantial disadvantages alleged (increased accident risk, migraines, noise, fatigue) never actually materialised during the claim period, so there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal found that holding Stage 1 and Stage 2 absence meetings did not amount to unfavourable treatment. The meetings were supportive and aimed at helping the claimant return to work, with no threat of dismissal or formal warning. Even if they were unfavourable, they were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of managing sickness absence, ensuring patient safety, and supporting staff wellbeing.

The tribunal found that Mr McKenzie's comment 'next time I'll shout' on 6 February 2023 was unwanted and related to disability, but it was not said with the purpose of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment. It was simply clumsy wording. Mr McKenzie promptly apologised and the claimant moved on. The tribunal found it did not have the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, or if it did, it was not reasonable for it to have that effect. Other alleged harassment incidents (requiring flexible working form, absence meetings) similarly failed the statutory test.