Claimant v Home Office (Border Force)
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim regarding failure to provide clean and accessible toilets was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 51.
The tribunal found the remaining reasonable adjustments claims were not well-founded after hearing evidence over five days. The respondent successfully defended the claims showing either the duty did not arise or reasonable steps had been taken.
The specific harassment claim relating to intrusive questions from the line manager about end of shift meal breaks in emails dated 17 and 19 March 2023 was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found the remaining harassment claims related to disability were not well-founded. After considering the evidence, the tribunal concluded the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory definition of harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010.
Facts
Mrs Thomson brought disability discrimination claims against the Home Office (Border Force) alleging failures to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability. Specific allegations included failure to provide clean and accessible toilets and intrusive questioning by her line manager about meal breaks in March 2023. The case was heard over five days before a full tribunal panel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Two specific claims (toilets and intrusive questioning about meal breaks) were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under rule 51. The remaining reasonable adjustments and harassment claims were found not well-founded after the tribunal heard full evidence and concluded the respondent had not breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
Practical note
A claimant represented by a lay representative bringing multiple disability discrimination claims against a government department requires strong evidence to establish both the duty to make reasonable adjustments and that alleged conduct meets the statutory definition of harassment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2408634/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep