Claimant v Ellesmere College Limited

Tribunal found that while the claimant raised concerns about stress, mental health deterioration, and health and safety matters, these complaints had no influence on the alleged detrimental treatment. The respondent's actions were taken for legitimate operational reasons, not because of the protected disclosures. Additionally, most complaints were out of time with no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to bring them in time.

Tribunal found the claimant raised health and safety concerns she reasonably believed were harmful to her health. However, these complaints had no influence on the alleged detrimental treatment. The respondent's decisions (e.g. removing housemistress duties, implementing return-to-work arrangements) were supportive measures taken for legitimate reasons, not because the claimant raised concerns. Time limit issues also applied.

Tribunal found most allegations not made out. The Deputy Head's comment that claimant 'must be quite fragile' was empathetic, not derogatory. Comments in grievance investigation that claimant was 'emotionally all over the place' were factual observations, and while unfavourable treatment arising from disability, were justified in context of investigation. Criticism of written responses and 'black and white thinking' did not amount to unfavourable treatment. Respondent only had actual knowledge of eating disorder from May 2022.

Tribunal found that requiring attendance at lunchtime meetings was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim (having all staff present without requiring them to give up evenings), and once claimant's disability was known, she was excused. Dress code change to exclude leather was unrelated to disability and was a proportionate professional standard. Allegations about lack of risk assessments and confidentiality breaches were not established. PCP did not place claimant at particular disadvantage.

Tribunal found respondent only had actual knowledge of eating disorder from May 2022. Once aware, adjustments were made (excused from lunchtime meetings, housemistress duties removed). Tribunal found claimant's 19 alleged PCPs were 'convoluted' and 'not properly analysed or evidenced'. Many PCPs were not established or were vague. Where PCPs existed, either claimant was not disadvantaged, or reasonable adjustments were made once disability known. Claimant herself was reluctant to relinquish housemistress role.

Tribunal rejected that Deputy Head said 'I hope you are not breaking down on us'. Comment about 'quite fragile' was sympathetic and supportive, not harassment. Comments in grievance investigation ('emotionally all over the place') were factual observations in investigation context and did not violate claimant's dignity. Comments about 'jumping up and down' were unrelated to disability. References to 'black and white' thinking were consistent with how claimant described herself. None of the conduct violated dignity or created hostile environment.

Tribunal found only two protected acts: the grievance dated 21 April 2022 alleging harassment and discrimination under Equality Act, and correspondence in August 2022 alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments. Earlier emails complaining of being 'bullied' and 'discriminated against' were insufficient as they did not clearly allege contraventions of the Act. The dress code change was introduced for legitimate reasons (ensuring professional dress post-lockdown) and applied to all staff, not because of protected acts.