Claimant v Brighton & Hove City Council

Tribunal found there had not been a restructure of the department as alleged by the Claimant. Therefore the Claimant had not been put under pressure by the Respondent in or around December 2020 as a result of the purported restructure. Claimant failed to prove the basis of the claim. All claims failed on time grounds and on merits.

Tribunal found that there was not a restructure of the department as alleged. Introduction of ORBIS did not entail a restructure of departments and did not have any substantial effect on day-to-day work. Claimant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that there was a restructure. Claim failed on merits and time grounds.

Tribunal found the Respondent continuously made reasonable efforts to discuss Claimant's performance and provide auxiliary aids. Delay in providing Dragon software was of minor consequence. The Claimant was given reduced duties and work was reassigned. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments. Claim failed on time grounds and merits.

All claims of harassment were dismissed on the ground that the allegations related to routine management decisions made against a background of attendance issues and poor performance. The Tribunal was satisfied the Respondent did not engage in unwanted conduct related to disability with the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Claim failed on time grounds and merits.

Tribunal found that raising a formal grievance on 12 January 2022 alleging disability discrimination was a protected act. However, delays to the grievance and appeal procedure were caused by errors and delays on all sides, but did not take place because the Claimant had carried out a protected act. Claim failed on merits.