Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no PCP existed. Respondent, through Ms Lanham, made extensive efforts to resolve the historical background document issue via five meetings and correspondence. Claimant's requested version of document was twice the length of the original, contained new allegations requiring investigation of matters up to 20 years old, which was not practicable or proportionate. Respondent offered reasonable solutions which claimant rejected.
No detrimental treatment found. Mrs Saunders' email of 16 August 2021 stating the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to instruct DWP to amend the document was factually correct. The Slater Tribunal had made no recommendation to correct the historical document. Claimant's perception of detriment was not objectively reasonable. Additionally, no causal connection established between protected acts (previous ET claim and grievances) and alleged detriment.
Tribunal found no unfavourable treatment occurred. Respondent did engage in meaningful discussions and good faith meetings through Ms Lanham to resolve the historical background document issue. Five meetings took place with extensive correspondence. The claimant's allegation was factually incorrect. Even if unfavourable treatment occurred, no evidence showed it was because of something arising from disability. Respondent's actions were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.
Facts
Claimant continues to be employed by DWP and is disabled by reason of anxiety and depression. She previously succeeded in an Employment Tribunal claim in 2019 (the Slater Tribunal) for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to a historical briefing document from 2011. This claim concerned how the respondent dealt with matters arising from the previous judgment. The claimant believed DWP was required to correct the historical background document following the Slater judgment, but that judgment did not make such a requirement or recommendation. After the 2020 remedy hearing, DWP through Ms Lanham held five meetings with the claimant to try to resolve the document issue. The claimant produced a revised version twice the length of the original containing new allegations requiring investigation of matters dating back 20 years. Despite DWP offering practical solutions including destroying old versions and storing the claimant's version, the claimant insisted DWP agree her version as the correct record, which proved impossible.
Decision
All three claims failed. The Tribunal found no failure to make reasonable adjustments because no PCP existed - the respondent made extensive good faith efforts to resolve the issue but the claimant's requirements were impracticable and disproportionate. The victimisation claim failed because there was no detrimental treatment - Mrs Saunders' statement that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order correction of the document was factually correct. The discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the respondent did engage meaningfully with the claimant and no unfavourable treatment occurred.
Practical note
A previous tribunal judgment does not create an automatic obligation to take specific remedial action unless expressly ordered or recommended, and what a claimant perceives a judgment to require may differ significantly from its actual legal effect.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2400424/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No