Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office

Insufficient evidence that Kelly Brierly was an appropriate comparator. No evidence that the claimant's requested managed move was actually refused. Management was attempting to resolve issues in the current role before considering a managed move. Claimant failed to prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred.

The tribunal found mismanagement of the first occupational health referral, requirement for a second assessment while absent, and sending personal data to Health Management without consent amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (requiring an OH assessment). The referral process was not proportionate: wrong boxes ticked, incorrect job description attached, insufficient information in work adjustment passport, and data breach. Management delayed implementation of adjustments despite OH report being available.

RB's continued management of the claimant from June/July 2021 until January 2022 and AL's management from November 2021 until March 2022 amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from the claimant raising grievances, which itself arose in consequence of her disability. Time extended on just and equitable grounds.

Claimant failed to prove she was subjected to verbal aggression from RB in telephone calls from late December 2020 to late February 2021. Emails described as forcefully worded were simply to the point. No unfavourable treatment proved in relation to working part-time/flexibly.

The PCP of requiring work during standard office hours put the claimant at substantial disadvantage due to fluctuating symptoms of her disability. Respondent knew or should reasonably have known by July 2021 (when OH report was available) but failed to allow the claimant to work outside core office hours. This was a reasonable adjustment that could have been made, and was eventually implemented when she moved roles in November 2021. Both RB and AL accepted in cross-examination that some work could have been done outside office hours.

While there was insufficient management action to implement disability passport adjustments, this did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The environment was uncomfortable but did not meet the statutory test for harassment. Tribunal found sufficient management action was taken in response to grievances.

The claimant's grievances on 18 October 2021 and 16 November 2021 were protected acts. RB's continued management of the claimant after these grievances constituted a detriment. The tribunal found this amounted to victimisation because of the protected acts.