Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board

The tribunal found the dismissal for capability was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant had been given extensive time, training, adjustments, and support over many years but met only 1 of 11 objectives in her Supported Improvement Plan. Stuart Gaw honestly believed on reasonable grounds the claimant could not perform at Band 6 level. The procedure was protracted due to absences and adjustments being sourced, but not unfair.

All direct discrimination claims were found to be time-barred under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found on the merits that the claimant did not prove facts from which an inference of less favourable treatment could be drawn. The capability issues were not because of her disability but related to clinical competency and judgment.

One allegation (12b) relating to 2017-2019 was time-barred and would have failed on the facts. The tribunal found the claimant did not prove she was blocked from using assistive equipment or coping strategies. The respondent showed its treatment was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims: ensuring effective working practices, appropriate patient care, and providing support to the claimant.

These claims related to the claimant's autoimmune haemolytic anaemia during 2020-2022 at RAH. They were time-barred as they related to a continuing course of conduct that ended in 2022. On the merits, the tribunal found the PCPs relied upon (mask requirements, treating COVID patients adjacent to workspace) were not applied as alleged and the claimant suffered no disadvantage.

Claims regarding 2015-January 2017 were time-barred. For later periods, the tribunal found all adjustments recommended by Access to Work and Occupational Health had been implemented. The claimant did not prove additional equipment (Dictaphone, scanning pen, paperless tablets) had been requested or that their absence caused substantial disadvantage. The capability issues related to clinical decision-making, not dyslexia.

The claimant accepted she received payment for all accrued but untaken holiday pay at termination. The claim was formally withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 51.