Claimant v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal found that the claimant did not establish that she was treated less favourably because of her disability. For example, Mark Turner's actions in January/February 2017 in discussing the claimant's role and performance were not because of her cancer or endometriosis, but due to the claimant's role being at risk because of budgetary pressures and the restructure of her department.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not subjected to unfavourable treatment because of something arising from her disability. For instance, the allegation that the claimant was not allocated work from February/March 2020 onwards was not established as unfavourable treatment arising from disability-related sickness absence; the tribunal found the claimant herself was not pressing for work and had not engaged constructively with the respondent's proposals for redeployment.

The tribunal rejected the indirect discrimination claims. For example, the allegation that requiring the claimant to use annual leave to facilitate a phased return to work in October 2019 put disabled persons at a disadvantage was not made out because the tribunal found the respondent had been flexible and the claimant would have received her full salary during the phased return regardless of annual leave usage. The claim regarding Occupational Health referrals putting disabled persons at a disadvantage (more likely to receive inaccurate reports) was also rejected as the tribunal found no evidence OH would provide inaccurate reports to disabled employees.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments. The alleged PCP (requiring the claimant to use annual leave to facilitate a return to work from 1 October 2019) was not established as placing the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because the respondent's approach was flexible and the claimant would have received full pay during the phased return. The tribunal also considered that extending sick pay beyond the contractual period (as the claimant sought) would not have been a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the alleged detriments (including failure to address concerns raised in 2020 and 2021, failure to implement first grievance recommendations, attempts to redeploy the claimant in February 2021, failure to provide structured work or any work from May 2020, and referrals to Occupational Health in late 2021 and early 2022) were not because the claimant had submitted her second grievance. For example, the tribunal found that Vicky Clarke's referral to Occupational Health in December 2021 and Jenny Townsend's pursuit of it in early 2022 were reasonable management actions given the claimant's reported health issues and her statements that she was unable to attend meetings, not acts of victimisation.

The tribunal rejected the harassment claims, finding that the alleged conduct (including Mark Turner informing the claimant on 13 February 2017 that she should consider resigning, Vicky Clarke's failure to address concerns raised in various correspondence, failure to implement grievance recommendations, attempting to impose redeployment in February 2021, failing to provide structured work from May 2020, and seeking to refer the claimant to Occupational Health without justification in late 2021 and early 2022) was not related to the claimant's disability and did not have the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. Where it did have such an effect, the tribunal found it was not reasonable for it to have done so given the context and the respondent's legitimate management reasons.