Claimant v St Mungo Community Housing Association

The tribunal found there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments on 28 November 2022. Although the claimant was placed at disadvantage by being required to work with an inexperienced worker while short-staffed, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that this particular situation would overwhelm the claimant due to her dyslexia, as she had coped with busy periods and new starters previously. The duty to make adjustments had not arisen before this unprecedented situation occurred.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant's dyslexia was not in itself part of the reason for termination. Mr Green had always known about the claimant's dyslexia and it had not been a difficulty before. The tribunal was satisfied that dyslexia in itself was not a significant factor in Mr Green's decision, which was primarily based on his concerns about the claimant's conduct.

The tribunal found that the claimant's need for adjustments arising from her disability was not a factor in the dismissal. Mr Green had always known the claimant required adjustments and had made informal adjustments before. There was no reason to think he would have been unwilling to accommodate further adjustments had matters developed differently. The decision was primarily based on perceived conduct issues.

The tribunal concluded that Mr Green decided to terminate the claimant's engagement because of what he saw as 'problematic behaviours' which included the claimant having raised concerns about discrimination and her disability being a factor. The protected acts (complaints to Mr Green and Mr Lopez about disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments) were a significant influence on his decision to terminate the claimant's engagement, even if Mr Green was not fully conscious of this.

This claim related to comments allegedly made to the claimant that she was 'hard to work with, a bully and could not manage the workload'. The tribunal found that this comment was not made by the respondent but by AV Support Services Limited, who were no longer a party to proceedings. As the claimant did not show the comment was made by the respondent, this claim did not succeed.