Claimant v British Airways Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found fundamental problems with the direct disability discrimination claims because no proper comparator could be constructed. The comparator must be someone with the same symptoms as the claimant but not disabled, which is not applicable in this case. Most claims were withdrawn before closing submissions. The tribunal found that matters like stopping sick pay occurred because entitlement had expired, not because of disability.
The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish substantial disadvantage in most cases. While the claimant asserted that 'uncertainty' triggered her anxiety, there was no medical evidence linking uncertainty to substantial disadvantage. The tribunal noted the claimant was not fit to fly during the relevant period according to her GP's fit notes. Where adjustments were offered (e.g., 50% contract, no standbys, ground role), they went beyond BAHS recommendations. The tribunal emphasized that outcomes matter more than process, and business managers were not confined by the BAHS matrix.
The tribunal examined each alleged act of harassment arising from the 17 March 2022 occupational health meeting with Ms Akuta. While the tribunal accepted the meeting did not go well and Ms Akuta's approach was brisk and business-like, most conduct was found to have a legitimate medical basis or did not 'relate to' disability in the statutory sense. Even where conduct was unwanted (e.g., comment about Access to Work), the tribunal found it unreasonable for it to have the effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, considering all circumstances including that this was one small element of a two-hour medical consultation.
Facts
Long-serving cabin crew member developed depression, anxiety and social phobia during COVID lockdowns. During the same period her role changed from Worldwide Crew (long-haul only) to Heathrow Cabin Crew (mixed fleet). She sought extensive reasonable adjustments for return to work in February 2022, including phased return starting at 33% contract, fixed roster with no standby/available days, and deferral of short-haul training. An occupational health consultation with Ms Akuta on 17 March 2022 went badly, with the claimant becoming very distressed. Ms Akuta recommended only 'no standby for a month' within the constraints of a pre-determined 'matrix' of adjustments. Business manager Ms Taylor offered more extensive adjustments including 50% working and ground-based work. The claimant remained signed off as unfit for work by her GP throughout the relevant period until taking up a ground role in July 2022.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Direct disability discrimination claims failed because no proper comparator could be identified. Reasonable adjustments claims failed primarily because the claimant could not establish substantial disadvantage - particularly her assertion that 'uncertainty' substantially disadvantaged her lacked medical evidence and was undermined by the inherent uncertainties in cabin crew work. The tribunal emphasized that during the relevant period the claimant was not fit to fly according to GP fit notes. Harassment claims arising from the occupational health meeting failed because the conduct either did not relate to disability or it was not reasonable for it to have the alleged effect, given the medical consultation context.
Practical note
When a claimant asserts that abstract concepts like 'uncertainty' substantially disadvantage them due to disability, tribunals will require clear evidence of the causal link, particularly where the claimant's role inherently involves such uncertainties, and where there is no supporting medical evidence beyond the claimant's own assertions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310704/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Cabin Crew
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister