Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

Tribunal found no unfavourable treatment occurred. The claimant was granted a two-hour CVP slot within days once the need for an interpreter was raised as an exceptional circumstance. The Tribunal found that normal workplace interactions, including a discussion with her line manager, were reasonable in the circumstances.

The PCP of requiring CVP slots longer than one hour to be face-to-face except in exceptional circumstances did not place persons with disabilities at a particular disadvantage. The policy included a mechanism for exceptions, and the claimant was granted her request. The Tribunal found the PCP was objectively justified to manage scarce resources fairly.

The Tribunal found that the one-hour CVP policy did not place black probation officers or prisoners requiring interpreters at a particular disadvantage because exceptions could be sought. The claimant's request was approved as an exceptional circumstance.

Tribunal found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage. The claimant had not raised any difficulty travelling or completing work in one hour at the relevant time. Even if knowledge existed, no substantial disadvantage was found.

The Tribunal concluded that the conduct did not relate to race or disability, save for two meetings. Even for those meetings, the conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity. The purpose was supportive. The Tribunal found the claimant's reaction disproportionate to normal workplace interactions, and the alleged detriments were resolved within days.

The Tribunal found the conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment. The respondent's actions were supportive in nature, aimed at checking the claimant's well-being and explaining procedures. The claimant's perspective was unreasonable given the circumstances.

The Tribunal found that none of the alleged detriments occurred because the claimant had done a protected act (posting on Teams about discrimination). The video meeting was planned before the protected act. The request to consider removing the post was because it was unbalanced, not because it was a protected act. The proposed meeting with Ms Lau was for supportive reasons.