Claimant v Form Health (UK) Ltd

Tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator. For example, regarding removal from Transferrable Skills training, the session was not directly relevant to her role, she had a backlog of audits to complete, and other Functional Capacity Assessors did not attend. Regarding dismissal, the comparator with the same travel restrictions but no disability would also have been selected for redundancy due to downturn in work and insufficient work available within travel radius.

Tribunal found that selection for redundancy and dismissal were unfavourable treatment and were in part because of the travel restrictions which arose from claimant's diverticulosis (need to limit time away from home, tiredness from travel). However, the tribunal held this was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims: ensuring business success and profitability, meeting client needs, and complying with obligations to clients. The downturn in work, claimant's consistent shortfall against billing target (through no fault of her own), and lack of less restrictive alternatives made dismissal proportionate.

Tribunal found the PCP (requiring regular travel and overnight stays) was applied and did put claimant at substantial disadvantage after September 2022 when respondent had knowledge of disability. However, none of the proposed adjustments would have been reasonable: amending geographical scope would not overcome disadvantage as she already worked across regions within travel radius; consultation had already occurred; there was insufficient audit work to adjust her duties; there were no alternative roles available. The adjustments already in place (limiting overnight stays to once per month, 2.5 hour travel radius) were appropriate.

Tribunal found that removal from training was not unwanted conduct as it was a legitimate management instruction to prioritise client work over non-essential training. Dismissal, while unwanted, was not objectively capable of having the proscribed effect as the redundancy consultation and dismissal process was carried out carefully and appropriately. Being at risk of redundancy in a downturn is part of the employment relationship and there was nothing in the manner of dismissal that violated dignity or created intimidating/hostile environment.