Claimant v Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

The tribunal found that the claimant's allegations of direct disability discrimination were not well founded. The tribunal determined that the alleged discriminators did not have the requisite actual knowledge of all section 6 Equality Act factors to amount to knowledge of disability, and/or the alleged acts did not occur as alleged, meaning decisions could not have been made because of the claimant's disability.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant's allegations of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 were not well founded. The respondents established they did not have the required knowledge of disability at the relevant times, and/or the alleged unfavourable treatment did not occur as alleged, and/or was not because of something arising from disability.

The tribunal found the reasonable adjustment claims failed because the respondents did not have knowledge of both the disability and the substantial disadvantage the claimant allegedly faced at the material times, and/or the alleged PCPs were not applied, and/or no substantial disadvantage arose from the PCPs, and/or the adjustments proposed would not have been reasonable.

The claimant's harassment claims under section 26 were not well founded. The tribunal found that the alleged conduct either did not occur, or was not related to disability, or did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, or it was not reasonable for the conduct to have such effect.

The victimisation claims failed because the tribunal found the claimant had not done a protected act at the material times relied upon, and/or the alleged detriments did not occur, and/or they were not because of any protected act.

The tribunal concluded that the first respondent had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence or any other contractual term such that the claimant was entitled to resign. The alleged breaches either did not occur, or were not sufficiently serious individually or cumulatively to amount to a repudiatory breach. The claimant's resignation was not in response to any fundamental breach.

Because the tribunal found there was no constructive dismissal, the claim for unfair dismissal necessarily failed. There was no dismissal, constructive or otherwise, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider fairness.