Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no evidence of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability. Treatment of the claimant by various individuals was related to her perceived rudeness and failure to engage with informal resolution processes, not her disability or anything arising from it.
The tribunal found that none of the respondents treated the claimant less favourably than they would have treated a non-disabled person in comparable circumstances. All actions taken were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons relating to conduct and procedural requirements.
While the claimant perceived conduct as unwanted, the tribunal found that none of the alleged conduct had the purpose of harassing her, and taking account of all circumstances including her perception, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have had a harassing effect.
The tribunal found no evidence that any of the alleged detriments were imposed because the claimant had done a protected act. Actions taken were due to legitimate concerns about conduct and failure to engage with proper procedures, not retaliation for complaints.
Facts
The claimant, a magistrate with fibromyalgia since 1999 and anxiety/depression from late 2022, required seating on the left to minimize pain. On 22 March 2022 an incident occurred in court when she arrived late and requested another magistrate move seats. A complaint was made about her perceived rude manner. The claimant responded by alleging disability discrimination. The Bench Chair attempted repeatedly to meet informally to resolve matters but the claimant imposed preconditions and refused to engage, leading to referral to the Conduct Advisory Committee. The claimant brought tribunal claims alleging discrimination, harassment and victimisation by multiple individuals involved in the complaints process.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the March 2022 incident arose from the claimant's perceived rudeness, not her disability. The tribunal found no evidence of discrimination in how any individual dealt with her. The Bench Chair and others acted professionally and made repeated attempts to support the claimant and understand her needs, but she obstructed the process. The tribunal described the case as a minor incident 'turned around and escalated out of all proportion by the claimant'.
Practical note
A claimant who repeatedly refuses to engage with reasonable attempts at informal resolution and imposes unreasonable preconditions cannot successfully claim that procedural consequences amount to disability discrimination or victimisation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400464/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Magistrate / Justice of the Peace
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister