Claimant v Calrom Limited

Tribunal found claimant was unfairly dismissed for SOSR (failure to return from career break) because respondent failed to follow its own career break policy, failed to conduct an investigatory or capability meeting, and failed to adequately warn the claimant in advance that she would be deemed to have resigned if she did not return to work.

Claim that respondent refused to retain claimant on furlough because of disability failed because claimant was not disabled at the time in June 2020 and respondent had genuine operational reasons to bring her back to work.

Claim that respondent refused to consider request to work from Pakistan because of disability failed because tribunal accepted respondent had genuine non-discriminatory reasons related to infrastructure, time zone differences, and need for face-to-face retraining after a lengthy career break.

Claim that dismissal was because of disability failed because tribunal found that a non-disabled comparator who had not returned to the UK from an extended career break would have been dismissed in the same circumstances. The dismissal was about non-return to the UK, not about disability.

Claim that respondent failed to investigate under career break policy and failed to conduct capability review as unfavourable treatment arising from disability failed because tribunal concluded the chain of causation between claimant's disability and failure to return was too weak. Main reason claimant did not return was failure to secure visas for parents, not the disability itself.

Claim that respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments (including allowing remote working from Pakistan) failed because tribunal found claimant had not established substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled employees. Even if she had, working from Pakistan was not a reasonable adjustment given need for face-to-face retraining, time zone differences, and infrastructure concerns.