Claimant v Rabart Decorators Merchants Limited

The tribunal found that the first written warning (11 August 2023) and final written warning (7 September 2023) were discrimination arising from disability. The warnings arose from the claimant's inaccuracy with written work and concentration difficulties (consequences of dyslexia). The respondent's justification defence failed because reasonable adjustments (such as working from home one day a week) had not been made and the claimant was not given clear standards or sufficient time after adjustments were implemented. However, allegations regarding cancelled meetings and CCTV installation failed.

The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to allow the claimant to work from home one day per week. The claimant's dyslexia caused concentration difficulties and the office was noisy (printer, phone calls, gym above). Working from home would have provided a quiet environment and significantly ameliorated the disadvantage. The respondent had constructive knowledge of this disadvantage. The claim regarding Grammarly Pro failed due to lack of evidence about what it did and how it would help.

All harassment allegations failed. The tribunal found that criticism of work quality was legitimate and did not go beyond what would normally be expected. Feedback was not given in an unkind, intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive way. The comment about six-year-olds using iPhones was not related to disability but to age and general difficulty with iPhones. The CCTV was installed for security reasons, not to monitor the claimant.

All direct discrimination claims failed. The claimant did not adduce primary facts showing that an appropriate hypothetical comparator (someone with similar impairment affecting written work, concentration, and speed, in the same role) would have been treated differently. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent's actions were not because of or related to disability.

The victimisation claim relating to the final written warning after the claimant raised a grievance on 15 August 2023 failed. Although the burden of proof shifted to the respondent, the tribunal accepted that the warning was due to lack of sufficient improvement in the claimant's work, not because she raised a grievance. The capability process had already started before the grievance and the respondent's concerns remained consistent.

The discriminatory dismissal claim failed on two grounds. First, the claimant had affirmed any breach by continuing to work, attending meetings in October 2023, and indicating she had every intention of returning to work. Second, the reason for resignation was that she obtained a better paid job, not the proven discrimination. The tribunal found that if she had not applied for the new job, she would not have resigned.