Claimant v Croner-i Limited

Tribunal found the redundancy was not genuine. Mr Chaplin had intended to retain the claimant in a new team leader role in March 2021 before she became disabled. After her disability, he removed the role. No potentially fair reason for dismissal existed; the true reason was her disability. Even if redundancy were genuine, the process was unfair: insufficient consultation, insufficient time given to demonstrate technical ability, structure changed mid-process, no proper search for alternative employment, and unfair appeal conducted by the original decision-maker.

Tribunal found the claimant's dismissal was because of her disability. Mr Chaplin's comment on 9 September 2021 describing the claimant's work as 'administrative' (when he knew it was technical) was also direct disability discrimination — part of a strategy to justify dismissal. Most other allegations of direct discrimination failed, particularly those against Ms Litchfield, as the tribunal found she was misled by Mr Chaplin and her actions were not 'because of' the claimant's disability.

The 'something arising' was the claimant's absence from work for cancer treatment. The tribunal found unfavourable treatment (side-lining, failing to return HR/annual leave access, not acknowledging return, excluding from meetings) was because of that absence. The respondent's justifications failed: privacy was no reason not to acknowledge her return; informal handling of exclusion complaint was not done at all; redundancy was not genuine. However, dismissal itself failed under s.15 because it was due to disability itself, not the absence.

The tribunal found that conduct by Mr Chaplin and Ms Litchfield — treating the claimant as unwanted, creating a hostile environment during the sham redundancy process — was unwanted conduct related to disability. Though Ms Litchfield may not have intended harassment, intention is not required. The conduct individually and collectively met the definition of harassment related to disability, violating dignity and creating an intimidating and offensive environment.

PCP1 (requiring attendance near potentially infected individuals) did not exist — the respondent moved desks to ensure safe distance. PCP2 (sick pay policy during phased return) did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons — the policy applied equally to anyone on phased return, and there was no evidence disabled people are more likely to need phased returns or be off sick longer than non-disabled sick people.