Claimant v General Medical Council

The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case. There were no facts from which the tribunal could conclude that a hypothetical comparator (a non-disabled person unable to work from the office for another reason) would have been treated better. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's disability as such, as opposed to her inability to perform her role from the office, did not influence the decision to dismiss. The second allegation regarding a statement by Ms Swatkins on 13 January 2023 failed on the facts—no such statement was made, and extending the notice period from 5 to 8 weeks could not be a detriment.

The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was because of her inability to work in an air-conditioned office, which arose in consequence of her disability. The respondent failed to establish that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Crucially, when the dismissal decision was communicated on 24 March 2023, the digital ID checks project was much further advanced than the decision-maker (Ms Swatkins) believed, having relied on outdated information from 27 January 2023. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to engage with the claimant's appeal submissions which raised the possibility of digital ID checks, and failed to reconsider the dismissal decision in light of the changed circumstances.

The tribunal found that the respondent's PCP (the decision of 3 May 2022 for all employees to return to work in the office) put persons with the claimant's disability at a particular disadvantage. The respondent failed to show that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, for the same reasons as the section 15 claim: the respondent failed to reconsider the PCP in light of the advanced state of the digital ID checks project and failed to engage with the claimant's appeal submissions.

The tribunal found the respondent's PCP (requiring employees to return to the office from 3 May 2022) put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to make the reasonable adjustment of allowing the claimant to continue working from home and to conduct ID checks digitally, which was feasible given the advanced state of the digital ID checks project by March/April 2023. The respondent failed to properly consider this adjustment when dismissing the claimant and when rejecting her appeal.

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to undertake a fair and proper process in circumstances where the claimant's incapacity was caused by the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found it was not reasonable for the respondent to dismiss the claimant without properly considering the imminent availability of digital ID checks as an alternative that would have allowed her to continue working from home. The tribunal also found the respondent failed to properly engage with the claimant's appeal submissions regarding the digital ID checks project.