Miss V Apuusi v Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust: 1305230/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. Her dismissal on grounds of capability was well within the band of reasonable responses available to the respondent.[2]Her claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments also fail.[3]The claimant’s acknowledged disability of ADHD played no material part in her absences in 2019. Nor did her chronic liver condition (whether or not that amounted to a disability on which there was limited evidence).[4]Her “work-related stress” was largely “organisational” and did not, on the evidence before us, have a significant adverse effect on her normal day to day activities.[5]The claimant’s mental health, however, deteriorated towards the end of 2019 as a result of several personal issues resulting in a diagnosis of depression / anxiety in October 2019. That did have a substantial adverse effect on her normal day to day activities, sleep etc but was not likely to last 12 months or more as at the date of dismissal.[6]Her fibromyalgia was diagnosed in August 2019 and is likely to have been present many months or years earlier. There was no clear evidence, Case Number: 1305230/2020 however, of the adverse effects of this condition absent the effects of the claimant’s two road traffic accidents in 2019, the effects of which had not lasted, nor were they expected to last, more than 12 months as at the date of her dismissal.[7]In any event, the respondent was not aware of the claimant’s fibromyalgia as at the date of her dismissal, nor could they be expected to be.[8]The claimant’s absences that led to her dismissal were caused by her road traffic accidents and the depression arising from her personal circumstances and, as a result, did not arise from her known disabilities.[9]In any event, her dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the respondent’s legitimate aim of managing absences and limited resources.[10]The respondent did not have a PCP of not extending timescales under their absence policies. In any event, they significantly extended all timescales applicable to the management of the claimant’s absences to an extent that was more than reasonable.