Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

Tribunal found the respondent took all reasonable steps to alleviate disadvantage. Flexibility around working hours was a reasonable adjustment. Claimant was coping with non-operational role. Laptop not needed during sickness absence. Working remotely was not feasible for the Safer Custody Manager role.

Tribunal found the PCP requiring staff to carry out essential functions of the role was not applied to the claimant as she had been placed on restricted duties from February 2023 without financial detriment. Even if applied, no stress and anxiety apparent to managers to give cause for concern.

Complaint essentially conceded by claimant's counsel as the role into which she argued she should have been moved never became a live vacancy.

Tribunal found delay in providing adjustable desk was regrettable but not unreasonable. Procurement issues caused delay. Claimant had option to work from office base at Jarrow in the interim to avoid pain and discomfort.

Claimant accepted in evidence that any requirement for employees unable to carry out their substantive role to have to apply for vacancies was not a PCP applied to her.

Complaint mirrors Complaint 1 regarding laptop but framed as failure to provide auxiliary aid. Failed for the same reasons as Complaint 1.

Complaint mirrors Complaint 4 regarding desk but framed as failure to provide auxiliary aid. Failed for the same reasons as Complaint 4.

Tribunal found requirement to attend FARM meetings did not amount to unfavourable treatment. Meetings were supportive in nature, collaborative, and designed to achieve a favourable outcome. Even if unfavourable treatment, it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Tribunal found respondent went to great lengths to support the claimant. Any unwanted conduct did not reasonably have the effect of violating dignity or creating hostile environment. FARMs were supportive in nature and resulted in favourable outcomes including extended restricted duties.