Claimant v Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A.

Claimant's second flexible working request of 24 January 2023 was not dealt with in a reasonable manner or within statutory 3-month decision period. However, Respondent argued Claimant agreed to delay by email of 24 March 2023 stating she would 'come back' to Respondent. Tribunal found the Respondent had not complied with statutory requirements under s.80F/80G ERA 1996, but claim dismissed nonetheless (likely on basis of Claimant's contribution to delay or lack of substantive breach).

Tribunal found Claimant disabled from 1 November 2022 due to mental health impairment (stress, anxiety, depression) and throughout due to asthma. Claims of unfavourable treatment arising from disability (s.15 EqA), failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.20/21), and harassment related to disability (s.26) all failed. Tribunal found alleged detriments either did not occur, were not unfavourable treatment, or were not because of disability. Respondent's PCP (requiring office attendance 50% or regular days) was found not to put Claimant at substantial disadvantage or, if it did, adjustments were not reasonable.

Claimant alleged less favourable treatment compared to male colleagues re: flexible working decisions and overtime cap in August 2020. Tribunal found no less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. Overtime cap complaint added by amendment at hearing: Claimant capped at 1-1.5 hours/day while male colleagues claimed 32.5 and 20 hours respectively in same period. Tribunal accepted Mr Stewart's evidence that cap was to avoid scrutiny, not sex-based. No causal link to sex established.

Claimant argued PCP requiring 50% office attendance or regular office days put women at particular disadvantage due to childcare responsibilities. Majority decision: Tribunal found PCP either not applied, or not indirectly discriminatory, or (if discriminatory) justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (teamwork, collaboration, training, corporate culture). This was a majority decision, implying one panel member dissented.

Claimant alleged protected act by referring to discrimination in email of 24 January 2023. Tribunal found no causal link between protected act and alleged detriments (email of 20 March 2023 re job needed; delay in FWR decision). Causation not established in cross-examination.

Claimant alleged protected disclosures on 24 January 2023 and 15 February 2023 re delay in FWR and impact on mental health. Tribunal found disclosures disclosed information and tended to show breach of legal obligation and endangerment to health/safety, BUT Claimant did not hold reasonable belief disclosures were in the public interest (they were personal to her). Therefore not protected disclosures. Even if protected, no causal link to alleged detriments.

Claimant alleged detriments under s.48 ERA (including s.44 health and safety, s.47E flexible working). Tribunal found alleged detriments either did not occur or were not done on grounds alleged. No causal link established. Claims under s.44 and s.47E ERA dismissed.