Ms R Modza v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: 3207431/2021

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3207431/2021

Between

Ms Rita ModzaClaimant

London Borough of Tower HamletsRespondent

Before

Employment Judge W A Allen KC

In person for claimant

Ms Chan (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 23 July 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The Claimants claims of failure to make a reasonable adjustment fail and are dismissed.

[2]The Claimant’s claims for direct disability discrimination fail and are dismissed.

[3]The Claimant’s claim for victimisation in relation to the following detriment “Did R move C and her team because of the grievance submitted on 18th October 2021” succeeds.

[4]The Claimant’s other claims for victimisation fail and are dismissed.

[5]The Claimant’s claims for race discrimination; harassment; and discrimination arising from disability are dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant.

[6]The matter will be listed for a remedy hearing, time estimate 1 day.

REASONS

[7]Following a period of early conciliation between 29 September 2021 and 9 November 2021, the Claimant’s claim form was presented on 6 December 2021.

[8]Her claims are for: failure to make a reasonable adjustment; direct discrimination; and victimisation.

[9]Claims of race discrimination and harassment were withdrawn by the claimant at an earlier stage in the litigation. The issues were set out in the list of issues compiled as a result of the preliminary hearing on 10 June 2022, at which the Claimant had been permitted to make some amendments to her original claim. At the outset of this hearing, the Claimant clarified that she was relying on the disabilities of dyspraxia; and anxiety and depression - and not on IBS or Reynaud’s disease. She also made a minor amendment to paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the list of issues to remove the word ‘informal’ and clarified that at para 13, the reference should be to paragraph 2(a) to (k) and not 3(a) to (k). An amended version of the list of issues incorporating those changes is attached to these Reasons.

[10]At the start of this hearing, the Claimant suggested that she also had a claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. However, the record of the preliminary hearing on 10 June 2022 makes it very clear at paragraph 9 that “The Claimant had also referred in her ET1 to claims under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. At the hearing the Claimant confirmed that she did not intend to bring any such claim. The tribunal will make an order dismissing any such claim at the final hearing”.

[11]An earlier listing for December 2023 had been postponed. The evidence and submissions were heard over 4 days between 3 and 6 June 2025 and the tribunal deliberated in chambers on 11 June 2025.

[12]The tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and on behalf of the Respondent from Lindsey Geaney: Fraud Investigation Officer, who investigated C’s October 2021 grievance; Mala Jones: HR business partner; Lissa-Marie Minnis (LMM): Head of Service, Regulated Service and Resources in Children’s Directorate, the Claimant’s former line manager until late October 2021.

[13]The tribunal was directed to evidence in a bundle running to page 693. During the hearing, at the tribunal’s request, the Respondent supplied the email of 5 December 2023 in which it gave its response on the question of disability; a declaration of interest guidance; declaration of interest webpage; and the grievance policy in place during the period 2020 up to August 2021 when the policy originally in the bundle came into effect. The Claimant supplied her declarations of interest forms dated 7 October 2019, 18 June 2021, and 17 April 2022.

[14]A cast list / chronology document was supplied by the Respondent.

[15]The tribunal received written and oral submissions from both parties following the conclusion of the evidence.

[16]The Claimant represented herself well. At the outset of the hearing she asked for there to be breaks during the hearing day – which was accommodated.

[17]The tribunal is grateful to both the Claimant and Ms Chan for the manner in which the hearing was conducted and for their efforts in ensuring that the evidence and submissions were completed within 4 days.

[18]Case Management Orders for the preparation of the case in good time for this hearing had not been complied with. Most egregiously, witness statements had not been exchanged until Monday 2 June 2025, the day before this hearing started, despite having been originally ordered for exchange in May 2024. The tribunal determined that some fault lay on both sides, but that primary responsibility lay with the Respondent for this state of affairs. The Respondent’s three witness statements were short (running to 18 pages) but it was clear that this had placed a greater, unnecessary burden on the Claimant. She rose to that challenge, but it should not have been an additional challenge placed on a person with anxiety representing themselves in adversarial litigation.

[19]There were some other aspects of the Respondent’s handling of the litigation which puzzled the tribunal.19.1 Mala Jones was called as a human resources witness, despite not having been herself involved in any of the relevant internal matters on which she was being asked to comment. No criticism is made of Ms Jones, who was as helpful as she could be in her evidence, but it was clear that at least one other human resource witness, still employed by the Respondent, with more direct knowledge of some relevant events could have been called to this hearing which has been listed since December 2023 – but that witness was said to be unavailable.

19.2 Both Mala Jones and Lindsey Geaney gave evidence that they had only been asked to put together their witness statement evidence within the last few weeks. This was a claim presented in December 2021; concerning events which occurred primarily in 2020 and 2021; with a final hearing originally timetabled for December 2023. Witnesses should have been approached considerably earlier than May 2025 in order that their witness statement evidence was obtained at a time when they could better recall relevant matters.

19.3 Many of the policy documents supplied by the Respondent were initially for periods of time more recent than the relevant events; and even after responding to a request from the tribunal, this remained so for some of those documents.

[20]The tribunal took these matters into account when making its findings and when considering whether inferences could be drawn from the Respondent’s actions.

Findings of fact

[21]The Claimant has been employed by the Respondent since January 2019 as Emergency Duty Team (EDT) Manager. Before her employment, she had worked for the Respondent as an agency worker initially performing the role of Senior Social Worker in the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) team from July 2017 gradually also taking on a role in the EDT.

[22]She is still in her EDT Manager role in which she has line management responsibilities.

[23]The precise date on which Ms Minnis formally became the Claimant’s line manager was in dispute, but it was not in dispute that Ms Minnis was line managing the claimant by January 2019. The tribunal find that the Claimant first told Ms Minnis about her dyspraxia at about this time.

[24]On 6 October 2019, the Claimant brought a grievance about Habon IbrahimOsman alleging bullying. This was later the subject of mediation.

[25]On 28 January 2020, the Claimant confirmed that she happy for mediation between herself and Habon Ibrahim-Osman to take place.

[26]On 30 January 2020, the Claimant confirmed that she was open to mediation if a counter allegation was not being considered against her.

[27]The Claimant had reservations about mediation but following discussions with management, she did agree to it.

[28]On 21 February 2020, a mediation joint agreement was concluded between the Claimant and Habon Ibrahim-Osman by the mediator, Mr Wiggett.

[29]In April/May 2020, a grievance was submitted against the Claimant by Ogochukwu Williams-Rondero, someone supervised by the Claimant.

[30]The Claimant was upset by the grievance and it heightened her anxiety.

[31]On 7-8 July 2020, Richard Baldwin, Assistant Director of Education and Ms Minnis’s line manager tried unsuccessfully to mediate between Ms WilliamsRondero and the Claimant. The claimant was willing to go through such a process but Ms Williams-Rondero declined.

[32]Ms Williams-Rondero went on maternity leave and ultimately never returned to the workplace.

[33]On 10 November 2020, the Claimant submitted a grievance about Ms Williams-Rondero’s grievance and the delay in dealing with it. The Claimant alleges that this was a protected act under the Equality Act. In the covering letter, the Claimant made reference to her anxiety and avoiding anything that caused her anxiety. She stated: “I have suffered panic attacks, severe anxiety and have been on anti-anxiety medication since February 2010”. She made reference to ‘direct and indirect harassment’ by Ms Williams-Rondero (not with reference to any specific protected characteristic). She stated: "To add, as a Local authority, I do not feel that you have formally supported me and despite hearing about the anxiety this has caused me, you have continued to allow me to suffer. . . . Before all this started I was a highly motivated colleague, but now I have no energy. For this reason, I have had to log with a solicitor, my stresses and ailments which run parallel to my mistreatment by proxy in the event that I am for whatever reason, unable to share the impact of this process on my welfare. With this in mind, I would urge the LBTH not to at this stage offer counselling. I have paid for counselling, paid for gym memberships, paid privately for assessment and been provided prescriptions all due to the delay. At this stage, nothing but an ending to this will ease the anxiety I continue to feel"

[34]In the grievance itself, the Claimant stated: “My main aim is my mental health at the moment. I can no longer work with Ogo unless at a minimum, the LBTH fund a period of therapy which I will indefinitely need before I consider the minimum of mediation with yourselves or Ogo. I would be grateful if you did not refer me to the employee assistance program – we have passed that stage. Please do not offer mediation. There is nothing to mediate – we have passed that stage. Currently, my only aim is to seek redress in the best way that will minimise my mental health from declining further. I cannot state what tis should look like until I have full details of the case against me. Yet, between now and then I will be expecting your response into how I will be supported outside of the supervision process, to overcome the high level of work related stress that I have endured in this role, with no peer-level colleagues to support me and limited connection with any neutral person (notwithstanding the attempts to helpfully minimise this from my manager).”

[35]On 24 November 2020, Ms Minnis wrote a manager’s response to the Claimant’s grievance which included the following: As a result of lack of progress this caused Rita to become extremely anxious due to uncertainty with regards to the actual nature of the complaint. The negative impact this has had on Rita's overall health has been noticeable in that she can be low in mood and tearful. Rita has been seeking support via an independent counsellor and is now on medication to help control her anxiety. Due to the nature of Rita’s complaint a timescale cannot be provide until we both are informed of what is happening with OW’s complaint. However, the matter needs to be independent investigated.

[36]On 27 November 2020, the Claimant was advised that an independent manager would be appointed to investigate Ms Williams-Rondero’s grievance.

[37]The email correspondence that we have seen indicates that HR asked Ms Minnis to deal with Ms Williams-Rondero’s grievance. Ms Minnis resisted that request at the time. Ms Minnis’s evidence was that she never acted as grievance investigator.

[38]The continued failure to progress matters contributed to the Claimant’s ill health – as documented by Ms Minnis on 24 November 2020. There were other contributing factors out of the workplace.

[39]The Claimant was praised by Mr Baldwin during an email exchange at the end of 2020. The Claimant stated: “I’ll be honest, this year I’ve been at my lowest EVER, but honestly without yourself and Lissa, I wouldn’t be here and probably locked up in a hospital somewhere. Lissa especially is one in a million, I don’t think anyone truly knows how good she is at minimising tensions and really containing difficult situations."

[40]At some point towards the end of 2020, Ms Williams-Rondero resigned from her post and left the organisation.

[41]Mr Baldwin on 27 December 2020 stated: “Dear Rita I Hope the Christmas period has been quiet for you and your staff. All the positive comments are much deserved, you manage the team and all the crises that occur out of hours in such a calm and professional manner. I know that 2020 was not easy for you on a number of levels, but hopefully with the Ogu situation now resolved 2021 will be positive”

[42]By the end of December 2020 the Claimant’s mental health was in a very poor state.

[43]Ms Minnis was on a long period of annual leave in December 2020 and January 2021.

[44]Between 1 January 2021 and 16 March 2021 the Claimant was off work. The certified reasons were given as low mood and severe lethargy. During the claimant’s sickness absence, Ms Minnis kept in contact with the Claimant.

[45]In January 2021 the Claimant resigned from her other job as a practice tutor of graduates.

[46]On 29 January 2021, Ms Minnis wrote to HR stating: “Rita has been on sick leave since the being of the year. She is signed off until the end of February. My understanding is that she is not very good and she may not be back to work for some time. After our meeting Ogo resigned from her post and has now left the organization. Based on this Rita indicated that she did not want to pursue her complaint. However due to her illness this has not been made formally in writing. "Do you require written confirmation from Rita or are able to take it from me that she no longer wishes to pursue the matter?”

[47]Nigel Bloch from HR replied to Ms Minnis on 29 January 2021 as follows: "Not long ago you had two staff who clearly had a very difficult relationship and now you have neither at work. I'm happy to close the case on the basis of your email."

[48]There is no documented evidence of the Claimant being informed that the grievance from Ms Williams-Rondero had closed.

[49]The Claimant wrote to Ms Minnis on 8 March 2021 stating: “I just want to say another BIG thank you for helping me through his period of sick leave and another THANK YOU being the MOST understanding manager I have had so far in my working career. I don’t foresee myself ever needing to take such an extended health-related break again, as you’ve really given me the space to assess what support I need and when, so I now feel better equipped to deal with early symptoms. You have my support 100% and I’m looking forward to coming back and starting again. With this in mind, I’ve finally managed to log on and tackle ‘next steps’ with my current period of absence ending as noted on my note which is 16th March 2021."

[50]The Claimant nominated Ms Minnis for a senior leader award in March 2021 in very positive terms.

[51]Ms Minnis’s evidence is that during the Claimant’s sickness absence she spoke to the Claimant about the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) but that the Claimant did not want to take this up as she was receiving therapy which she had arranged privately. The claimant denied this in her evidence. Ms Minnis suggested that the Claimant was referred to OH but that the Claimant said that she did not want such a referral because the issues were not work related. The claimant denied this in her evidence.

[52]The tribunal find that the Claimant, as a line manager herself, was in any event aware of the EAP (and of the OH referral process). The EAP does not require an employer referral and can be approached directly. On balance, the tribunal find that Ms Minnis did refer to the EAP in her conversations with the Claimant; and that the Claimant was offered an OH referral during her period of sickness absence by Ms Minnis; and that the Claimant, at that point, said that she did not want such a referral to OH – which is consistent with the claimant’s correspondence on 10 November 2020 cited above.

[53]The Claimant took some annual leave after the end of her sickness absence and she returned to the workplace in mid-April 2021.

[54]The Claimant’s evidence is that there was no formal return to work interview with Ms Minnis on her return. Ms Minnis’s evidence was that there was a ‘return to work’ meeting on the ‘phone shortly before the Claimant returned to work and that Ms Minnis was on annual leave when the Claimant did return to work.

[55]There is no documented record of any return to work process.

[56]The Respondent’s Attendance Management Policy and Procedure states: 5. RETURN TO WORK / INFORMAL REVIEW MEETING5.1.1 When staff return to work, irrespective of the duration of the absence, the manager must carry out a return to work meeting as soon as practicable.

5.1.2 Whilst the policy advocates early intervention, managers will make decisions on a case by case basis and take account of prognosis, individual circumstances, including matters related to disability, and service needs.

5.1.3 Managers must therefore ensure that they have made staff aware of the required standards for the role and, ❖ Carry out return to work meeting. This should be undertaken in a confidential environment. Note: If staff have reached the trigger level, then this can be a combined return to work/informal meeting. ❖ Record the meeting promptly using HR Self Service. ❖ Ensure staff complete a return to work/self-certification form stating the reason for absence. The reason for sickness should be clear and the manager should clarify any ambiguity. ❖ Raise any concerns about attendance as soon as possible at the return to work meeting or informal review meeting. ❖ Ensure staff are aware of the Employee Assistance Programme and other support arrangements and consider reasonable adjustments for staff with a disabling medical condition. ❖ The informal review must take place either during the return to work meeting or take place immediately after the return to work meeting, within 1 week. ❖ Where staff are on long-term absence, the informal review to discuss support and next steps can take place during the period of sickness absence. The informal meeting can be held whilst the member of staff remains off sick.

[57]The Respondent’s Informal Attendance at Work Guidance states that the aims of holding an informal attendance review (which can be part of the return to work meeting) are to offer any support to improve staff attendance and wellbeing, note management concerns about the employee’s sickness absence level, advise the staff member of the implications and allow them to inform their manager of any factors which are contributing to their sickness absence. Given this, it is imperative that the meeting happens in a timely manner. The expectation is that this meeting will be held in person at a work location. With any of these options, a record of the meeting should be given to the staff member following the meeting.

[58]In light of the lack of record, the tribunal finds that although regular communication between the Claimant and Ms Minnis took place during the Claimant’s absence and that there was clearly communication about the Claimant’s return to work, Ms Minnis did not carry out a return to work interview which complied with the Respondent’s policy and guidance.

[59]On 1 May 2021 the Claimant wrote to Mr Baldwin and Ms Minnis noting that Williams-Rondero has resigned but asking for a formal written response so she can add it to her files, and asks if there is any formal offer of support for her. Mr Baldwin replied on 24 May 2021: “Firstly let me apologies if you feel that the matter has not been formally resolved. As you know, at the point that Ogu left the Council, there were a number of conversations between us, and I had made an assumption that these concluded the matter. I can confirm in writing that as far as I am concerned the matter between Ogu and yourself is now closed. I would be happy to meet with Lissa and yourself to talk through support options if this is helpful. I will ask Caleigh to set this up so that all parties feel that the matter can be concluded.”

[60]On 1 May 2021, the Claimant wrote to Ms Minnis about a number of matters including asking where the Claimant should log her current health concerns.

[61]On 3 May 2021 Ms Minnis wrote to the Claimant about arranging a return to work interview, stating that she would set it up for later in the week. The tribunal find that this never took place.

[62]By 12 May 2021, Ms Minnis was seeking support from Mr Baldwin on the basis that the Claimant was “bombarding me with emails” and that “I am worried she is building up to something”. The correspondence between the Claimant and Ms Minnis from this point onwards demonstrates that their previously positive relationship was deteriorating.

[63]On 17 May 2021, the Claimant asked Ms Minnis for help as she was having trouble coping with a colleague’s mental health related sickness which was having a significant impact on the Claimant’s mental health; and that the Claimant was not trained in this area. The Claimant stated: “I don’t currently feel well enough to return to the level of demand that I am faced with; particularly since not much has changed between December and my formal return in April. . . . I have arranged to see my doctor this Thursday. Contrary to previous discussions, it’s likely that I may not be ﬁt for work. With this in mind, please could you let me know what support can be provided to reduce these highly stressful processes as it would be useful to consider my options before my GP appointment.”

[64]Ms Minnis replied saying that a referral to OH is required and set up a meeting the next day for a discussion about what support is required.

[65]Ms Minnis felt at the time that the Claimant had avoided OH appointments in order to get out of dealing with the other colleague’s mental health related sickness. The Claimant accepted that she had missed one OH appointment.

[66]The OH assessment did not take place until 22 June 2021 which is also the date of the report. The report stated: Ms Modza is currently fit for work and at work. She reports chronic health condition with symptoms that flare up occasionally affecting her daily living. She is accessing counselling privately to build her psychological resilience whilst managing to attend work. She may benefit from management support in continuing in her current role. Ms Modza works as a Team Manager- Children's Emergency Duty Team She is full time employee and has been doing role since 2017 as agency and permanent in 2019 does shift work and after hours managing emergencies and admin roles, meeting and supervision she did used to enjoys the role but there has been a lot of changes working from home and during the lockdown Ms Modza informs me she has been absent from work due to anxiety and depression. She confirms she has been experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression from last year February 2020. She perceived the trigger of this to be due to the pressure she put on herself, the nature of her work and some organisational processes and work relationships. Currently Ms Modza is not on any medication, she is having private CBT course which she finds helpful. She is also having counselling sessions with the specialist once a week and she is learning strategies of coping with anxiety and being more assertive. Ms Modza informs me about ongoing issue at work in relation to managing the sickness absence of a colleague. Ms Modza is finding this difficult as the process has adverse effect on her own mental health. She informs me she has spoken to her manager and HR about this. Ms Modza she enjoys her work and had no issues with attendance and performance in the past. I have advised Ms Modza to speak to her manager about the above issue and to ask for the support she require whilst accessing counselling for her own mental health and for going forward to aid her in completing her roles and responsibilities at work. Ms Modza is currently fit for work and at work and would benefit from regular one to one welfare meeting and management support as she continues with counselling therapy to build her emotional resilience. I would also recommend that you may consider the completion of a stress risk assessment so as to help clearly identify the sources of stress. A stress risk assessment can help to explore possible solutions or actions to help reduce perceived stress at work. I would advise that an agreed review date is established so as to evaluate solutions or actions taken forward and that monitoring continues. Is the employee fit to continue in their current role? I anticipate as Ms Modza continues with the counselling therapy and her symptoms are well managed that she will be fit to continue with her current role. Is the employee’s absence or health concern related to their work? Ms Modza states her symptoms have been adversely affected by some organisational processes and her work load. Are workplace adjustments recommended? You may wish to complete a stress risk assessment with the employee to identify any adjustments, support or process change she may require in performing all aspects of her role. Is the employee’s attendance likely to be affected in the future? In my opinion Ms Modza attendance is unlikely to be affected into the future as her symptoms continue to be managed. Does the employee have a health condition that is likely to impact on their performance? In my opinion Ms Modza's health condition is unlikely to impact on her performance as her symptoms continue to be managed Recommendations to Manager / HR:• undertaking a stress risk assessment at your earliest convenience, may be a useful tool in identifying particular areas of concern at work and action plan accordingly t offer support. It may also be useful to undertake a one to one management meeting on a weekly basis initially to offer support , monitor her progress and ensure she is coping with all aspects of her work. Recommendations to Employee:

• I have advised Ms Modza on resources to support herself at this time, online resources on Mindfulness, Healthy Minds CBT for self help. I have reminded her to adhere to a healthy lifestyle to support her general health and well-being going forward. keep manager inform of any changes and ask for support when required.

[67]Given that the OH referral process commenced shortly after the Claimant’s actual return to work (following annual leave) the tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent had not unreasonably failed to refer the claimant to OH.

[68]The Claimant and Ms Minnis had regular (approximately monthly) supervisions to discuss the Claimant’s work. At those meetings, there was also some discussion in relation to the Claimant’s health.

[69]On 13 July 2021 Ms Minnis had a supervision meeting with the Claimant at which the OH recommendations were referenced. They both found the Respondent’s stress risk assessment form to be unsuitable. Ms Minnis sent the Claimant the Stress Risk assessment guidance for managers to review. Ms Minnis’s evidence is that by this point, their working relationship was under strain. The stress risk assessment did not ever take place.

[70]There were supervision meetings between Ms Minnis and the Claimant but weekly management support meetings were not set up. Ms Minnis’s evidence is that these were offered to the Claimant and that the Claimant did not think that they would be useful. Ms Minnis told the subsequent grievance investigators that the Claimant said that ‘you aren’t trained enough to deal with my mental health’. The Claimant’s evidence is that she got the impression that such meetings would be burdensome for Ms Minnis and therefore that she did not press for them and said that she would get back to Ms Minnis if they were needed. The Tribunal find that such weekly support meetings were offered but that the Claimant indicated that she did not want them at that time.

[71]On 10 August 2021, Ms Minnis wrote to Mr Baldwin as follows: “I meet with Rita earlier today but had to end the meeting as I felt it was getting very hostile and I was becoming visibly upset. Rita stated that she feels that I have become very unsupportive of her since coming she has come back from sick leave. She feels that shift came about when she told me that rather than raising a complaint or grievance she was keeping an evidence bank to build a legal case. I tried to deflect from this however I said how it has felt for me since her return, and that is I feel she dumps on me. I tried to be constructive in my examples but she twisted what I was saying into making it sound like me having an issue with her. Rita raised the Ogo issue and she seems to harbour a lot of bad feelings about this. She feels that you and I did not provide her with the closure she needed. She raised that upon her return she emailed us about this and I did not respond and you responded to ask if she would like to meet. She replied yes and then heard nothing further. It is true that I didn’t respond or raise the matter with her any further. When I tried to point out that if she felt this was still an issue why has she waited to raise it. She said I should know and should not have to be reminded of how this affected her. I felt that it was futile to try to reason with her and everything I tried to raise as a way forward she felt it was me attacking her. I was not able to take notes of this as it is not possible to have such a discussion and minute it. The catalyst for this was she asked me for what my opinion on second employment is. I said it is not about me having an opinion but what is the council’s policy on it. She said that HR has advised her that it was her line manger’s decision. I said then I would need to revert to you as I am not comfortable in making that decision. I said I think we should meet with you as there are several matters that I don’t have the answers to which she has raised. This then lead into her stating that I am no longer supportive etc I fear that mine and Rita’s working relationship has completely broken down as neither of us trust one another and I am worried this is having an impact on the service. I am sorry about this however I think this does need some level of intervention from yourself.”

[72]The Claimant in oral evidence disagreed that she had told Ms Minnis that she was ‘keeping an evidence bank to build a legal case’ but accepted that she had made reference to potentially going to an Employment Tribunal given the concern that she had about drift and delay.

[73]The Respondent operates a system as part of the annual declaration of interests form whereby employees can request permission to do additional outside work. The Claimant had been doing such work with the Respondent’s permission prior to 2021. At that meeting on 10 August 2021, the Claimant asked Ms Minnis if she would authorise additional work to which Ms Minnis replied that she would need to refer this to Mr Baldwin, because Ms Minnis was concerned, given the Claimant’s current state of health and recent period of sickness absence, that there needed to be an exploration of whether an additional job might have an impact on the Claimant’s important and stressful existing role for the Respondent.

[74]C was absent from work due to sickness from 10 August 2021 until 8 September 2021. The certified reason was ‘work related stress’.

[75]Email communication continued between the Claimant and Ms Minnis during this period of sickness absence. The claimant informed Ms Minnis on 19 August 2021 that “I will really struggle if I start talking about anything work related. I just breakdown and right now I don't like the sound of my own voice. I'm also not sure if I can return to the LBTH, hence, why even with half pay I just had to stop everything without a plan. I've had a an appointment with a MH team on Tuesday who feel that my anxiety is now severe, but aim to get back to me this afternoon around next steps.” The tone of Ms Minnis’s emails in response was supportive and conciliatory.

[76]The Claimant returned to work in September 2021 but there was no return to work meeting or supervision meeting until October 2021. Ms Minnis suggested in her evidence that this was due to annual leave and / or the Claimant having been unavailable to meet earlier. The tribunal accepted that evidence. Ms Minnis suggested a reference to OH and the Claimant agreed (after initially expressing reluctance). That referral was delayed because Ms Minnis was locked out of the OH computer system and it ultimately did not take place because the Claimant’s line management changed.

[77]On 28 September 2021, the Claimant wrote to Ms Minnis suggesting that the Claimant was being ’managed out’ and referencing a change in attitude since the Claimant’s period of sick leave in early 2021.

[78]In early October 2021 Mr Baldwin suggested a 3-way meeting with Ms Minnis and the Claimant to try to resolve relationship issues. Ultimately that did not take place because the Claimant put in a grievance in part about Ms Minnis.

[79]On 14 October 2021 Mr Baldwin met the Claimant and outlined that in relation to the additional job point, he needed to more fully understand what additional hours the Claimant would be working and see HR advice. He said that he needed to be reassured that she was rested and ready for work given her important role in making decisions concerning the welfare of children. The Claimant’s evidence was that Mr Baldwin initially refused to authorise additional work but that when she pressed him he said that he would go away and come back to her – which did not happen. The tribunal was not shown any note of the meeting on 14 October 2021. The tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence as to what Mr Baldwin said at that meeting.

[80]The Claimant submitted a grievance dated 18 October 2021. It is admitted by the Respondent that this amounted to a protected act. Mr Baldwin stated in an email to the Claimant on 21 October 2021 that it was received on 20 October. In that email he also told her that he was leaving the organisation at the end of the following week.

[81]Ms Geaney and Joanne Starkie were appointed on 26 October 2021 to investigate the Claimant’s grievance.

[82]The Respondent’s policy suggests that a grievance investigation should take 4 weeks but provides for the investigators to request extensions – normally of 10 days at a time.

[83]Steve Nyakatwa, Director of Education, wrote to the claimant on 2 November 2021 informing her of the appointment of Ms Geaney and Ms Starkie as investigators; and the 4 week target; and that he would update the Claimant if that deadline could not be met.

[84]The claimant and the EDT team that she managed was moved to different management from the start of November 2021. The claimant was not consulted and regards this as a detriment, in particular because she was moved to a line manager with no experience of managing an EDT. It was said to be an interim measure in an email from Sam Nair, Acting Divisional Manager, to the Claimant on 9 November 2021. The tribunal’s understanding is that it is still operating. This happened in part in consequence of the grievance because the Respondent took the view that the Claimant could not be line managed by Ms Minnis whilst there was an investigation into (in part) allegations about Ms Minnis’s conduct towards the Claimant.

[85]The claimant had been invited to attend monthly Senior Leadership Team meetings from 1 July 2021 to keep her abreast, as a night based manager, of the overview of the whole service and wider issues. The Claimant’s evidence, which was accepted by the tribunal, was that invitations to attend management meetings specifically with Ms Minnis were cancelled on 5 November 2021. However the Claimant’s oral evidence was that she continued to be invited to SLT meetings until late 2022.

[86]The investigators completed their report by 20 December 2021 having asked for an extension of time in November 2021. Ms Jones gave evidence that it was unusual for a grievance investigation in a matter of this level of complexity to be concluded within the 4 week target.

[87]The grievance process was not concluded until March 2022 – but the period post-dating the presentation of the Claimant’s ET1 largely does not concern this tribunal. The grievance was upheld in part.

[88]Mr Baldwin left the Respondent at the end of October 2021. Before he left, he was interviewed as part of the investigation into her grievance. The claimant was also interviewed as was Ms Minnis. Nigel Bloch (HR) answered written questions on 11 November 2021.

[89]The Claimant presented her ET1 on 6 December 2021.

The law

[90]The following sections of the Equality Act 2010 are relevant: 6 Disability(1) A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. 13 Direct discrimination (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. 20 Duty to make adjustments (1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.

(2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.

(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. 23 Comparison by reference to circumstances (1) On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13, 14, or 19 there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case. 27 Victimisation (1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because— (a) B does a protected act, or (b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act. (2) Each of the following is a protected act— (a) bringing proceedings under this Act; (b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act; (c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act; d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act. (3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.

(4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual.

(5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule. 136 Burden of proof (1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act. (2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.

[91]The Claimant in submissions referred to the principles in Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall

[2008] IRLR 227

; Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering

[2002] IRLR 744

; Laing v Manchester City Council

[2006] IRLR 748

; Shamoon v Chief Constable of RUC

[2003] ICR 337

; Gallop v Newport City Council

[2013] EWCA Civ 1583

; Environment Agency v Rowan

[2008] IRLR 20

; Martin v Devonshires Solicitors

[2011] IRLR 748

; Kokomane v Boots Management Services Ltd

[2023] EAT 38

; Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

[2003] IRLR 96

; Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University LHB v Morgan

[2018] EWCA Civ 640

[92]The tribunal were referred in the Respondent’s submissions to the principles in Royal Mail v Efobi

[2021] UKSC 33

; Hewage v Grampian Health Board

[2012] IRLR 870

; and Madarassay v Nomura International PLC

[2007] ICR 867

;

[2007] IRLR 246

[93]The tribunal was supplied with the following authorities by the Respondent:93.1 Fullah v Medical Research Council (MRC) and another

UKEAT/0586/12

93.2 Durrani v London Borough of Ealing

UKEAT/0454/20

93.3 Tesco v Tennant

[2020] IRLR 363

93.4 Kokomane v Boots

[2025] EAT 38

[94]It is well-established that a failure to assess does not itself constitute a failure to make a reasonable adjustment (Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

[2006] IRLR 664

). In the record of the preliminary hearing on 6 June 2022, at para 14.11, EJ Crossfill explained to the Claimant with reference to Tarbuck “that that case established that it will not be unlawful for an employer not to make enquiries about what adjustments it might make. What is important is whether there was a reasonable adjustment that would reduce the effect of the PCP complained of. The Claimant may need to review the merits of the reasonable adjustments she has identified.” Conclusions on the issues Disability Does the Claimant (“C”) have a physical or mental impairment?

[95]The disabilities relied upon by C are: Dyspraxia; Anxiety and Depression.

[96]The Respondent accepted that the Claimant had dyspraxia and that it amounted to a disability and that it was aware of the dyspraxia – but not that it was aware that the claimant was under a substantial disadvantage because of the operation of a PCP.

[97]In relation to the anxiety and depression the Respondent did not accept that it amounted to a disability on the basis that the intensity of the symptoms varied from time to time; and there was a question mark as to whether it was long term at the time of the discriminatory acts.

[98]The tribunal determined that at the time of all of the alleged discrimination, the Claimant was disabled on the basis of her conditions of dyspraxia, anxiety and depression and that her impairments had lasted for more than 12 months and / or were likely to last for more than 12 months at the relevant times and that they had a substantial adverse effect on her day to day activities such as sleeping, eating and working and socialising; and that the Respondent had knowledge of the dyspraxia at all relevant times; and that the Respondent had knowledge of the effects of the anxiety and depression on the Claimant from at least November 2020 onwards. Anxiety and depression is by its nature a recurring condition. The Claimant’s severe mental health difficulties at the end of 2000 / start of 2021 were known to the Respondent. The tribunal reject the submission made by the Respondent that either the mental health conditions or the Respondent’s knowledge of those conditions (and that they were likely to last at least 12 months) was not in place during the period March to May 2021. Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustment(s) (Equality Act 2010 ss20 (2), 21 and 39 (2)) PCP Did R apply a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) to C of requiring that she managed her assigned caseload; managing direct subordinates; doing shift work and out of hours managing of service users’ emergencies i.e., carrying out her full range of duties?

[99]This PCP was applied. This was not challenged by the Respondent. Substantial comparative disadvantage Did that PCP put C at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who did not have C’s disabilities. It is C’s case that her disability meant that she was unable to cope with her increasing and more challenging workload during the period from the 31st January 2021 onwards?

[100]The tribunal accepted that for a person such as the Claimant with dyspraxia and anxiety and depression to be doing an anxiety inducing job such as this with a number of members of staff missing would place them at a substantial disadvantage. Did R have knowledge of C’s disabilities?

[101]The tribunal have found that the Respondent did have this knowledge. Did R have knowledge of the substantial disadvantage(s)?

[102]Yes – the Respondent had knowledge as notified to the Respondent in correspondence from the Claimant. Reasonable steps Did R take such steps as it was reasonable to have taken in order to avoid that disadvantage? - Undertaking a return to work interview on C’s return to work in March 2021

[103]The tribunal did not consider that this allegation was made out. Whether or not an interview is conducted in accordance with the Respondent’s policies is not a reasonable adjustment in itself. - Referring C to Occupational Health immediately following C’s return to work in March 2021

[104]The tribunal did not consider that this allegation was made out. Whether or not a referral is made to OH is not a reasonable adjustment in itself. - Commencing the informal sickness procedures to support C following C’s return to work in March 2021

[105]The tribunal did not consider that this allegation was made out. Whether or not an informal procedure is conducted in accordance with the Respondent’s policies is not a reasonable adjustment in itself. - Conducting a Stress Risk Assessment as advised by Occupational Health in their report of June 2021

[106]The tribunal did not consider that this allegation was made out. Whether or not a risk assessment is carried out is not a reasonable adjustment in itself. - Conducting weekly management support meetings and as advised by Occupational Health in their report of June 2021

[107]Regular support meetings could be a reasonable adjustment. However, tthe tribunal accepted Ms Minnis’s evidence that when the specific weekly support meetings were raised by Ms Minnis, the Claimant indicated that she did not want them. It would not have been reasonable to impose them on the Claimant. This allegation was not made out. Direct Disability Discrimination (Equality Act 2010 ss13 (1) and 39 (2))

[108]C relies on a hypothetical comparator. The characteristics of such a comparator are of someone with no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case apart from the protected characteristic of

[109]In relation to all of the allegations of direct discrimination below, the tribunal did not find that the Claimant had established a prima facie case of direct discrimination. On some allegations the tribunal found that the Claimant had been subjected to a detriment but in all direct discrimination allegations (aside from (h)), the tribunal were not satisfied that there might be a difference in treatment or that disability might be the reason. In relation to (h) the tribunal were not satisfied that a hypothetical comparator would have been treated differently. (a) In dealing with C’s grievance against Habon Ibrahim-Osman for bullying and harassment which she submitted in October 2019 did R:109.1 Fail to deal with the grievance formally and

109.2 Deal with the grievance by way of informal mediation

[110]This is not made out on the facts. It is the Respondent’s policy to attempt informal resolution and the claimant agreed to it at the time. There is no detriment to the Claimant. In any event, any hypothetical comparator would have been treated in the same way. It was nothing to do with disability. (b) Did R fail to formally advise her of the outcome of a grievance submitted against her in April/May 2020

[111]The Respondent did fail to formally advise the Claimant in a timely manner. The tribunal were unimpressed with the respondent’s failure to record this (and other matters) in writing, but the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated and the tribunal did not conclude that any treatment was because of (c) Did R fail to formally respond to C’s grievance submitted on the 10th November 2020?

[112]The Respondent did fail to formally respond to the Claimant. The tribunal were again unimpressed with the respondent’s failure to deal with this (and other matters) in good time and to have closed off the grievances in 2020, but the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a conclude that it was because of disability. (d) Did R fail to undertake a return-to-work interview with C following C’s return to work in March 2021?

[113]The Respondent did fail to undertake a formal return to work interview following the Claimant’s return to work in March 2021. Ms Minnis’s approach was not in accordance with the Respondents procedures (which Ms Minnis repeatedly told the tribunal that she had not read) but the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated by Ms Minnis and the tribunal did not conclude that it was because of disability. Ms Minnis simply had a less formal approach and considered that she had fulfilled her responsibilities in the actions that she had undertaken (which the Claimant had thanked her for at the time). (e) Did R fail to offer C a referral to Occupational Health during or following C’s sick leave between January 2021 and March 2021

[114]The tribunal find that during that period of sick leave, the Respondent did offer a referral to OH. After the sick leave, the tribunal find that albeit a month after her actual return to work, the Respondent did offer the Claimant a referral to OH. Therefore this complaint is not made out on the facts. In addition, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a conclude that any delay in referring the Claimant to OH was because of (f) Did R fail to initiate the informal sickness procedures for C following C’s return to work in March 2021.

[115]The tribunal find that the Respondent did fail to initiate the informal sickness procedures for the Claimant; and that this did amount to a detriment – given that one of the purposes would have been to support the Claimant. However, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a conclude that it was because of disability. (g) Did R fail to implement the recommendations of Occupational health based on their assessment of her and conducted on the 22nd June 2021. This includes failure to undertake a stress risk assessment and conduct weekly management support meetings with her.

[116]The tribunal find that the Respondent did fail to conduct a stress risk assessment which does amount to a detriment. The tribunal find that the Respondent did offer weekly management support meetings, which were rejected by the Claimant (which does not therefore amount to a detriment). However, in relation to both matters, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated and the tribunal did not conclude that it was because of disability. (h) Did R refuse to sign off C’s declaration of interest, whereby C requested authorisation for additional employment in August 2021 and October 2021.

[117]The Claimant wasn’t refused sign off – but there was certainly some concern raised by the Respondent as to whether following periods of sickness absence, the Claimant was ready and able to take on additional work to her core role. A hypothetical comparator who was not disabled but who had been off sick for the same period of time and who was raising the same concerns about the workload would have been treated in the same way. Therefore, the Claimant was not treated less favourably. Although her treatment was at least in part related to her disability (of the sickness absence arising from it), it was not because of it. (i) Did R fail to provide supervision and a return-to-work interview in September 2021 upon C’s return from sick leave

[118]The Respondent did delay doing this until October 2021. However, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated and the tribunal did not conclude that it was because of disability – having accepted Ms Minnis’s evidence that this was due to annual leave and / or the Claimant having been unavailable to meet earlier. (j) Did R fail to refer C to Occupational Health after they had, via Lissa-Marie Minnis, agreed to do so on the 20th October 2021

[119]The Respondent did fail to make this referral to OH. However, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated and the tribunal did not conclude that it was because of disability but rather was initially because Ms Minnis couldn’t log in – and then because C changed line management from Ms Minnis. (k) Did R fail to deal with C’s grievance of the 18th October 2021 in a reasonable time frame.

[120]The tribunal are only looking at the time period up to the presentation of the claim form on 6 December 2021. The investigation took until 20 December 2021. The tribunal’s experience of such investigations is that they frequently take even longer – and even by 20 December (when the report was produced), but certainly by 6 December (when the claim was presented), the period taken was not detrimental to the Claimant – and the investigators had sought authorisation to go beyond the 4 week initial period set out in the Respondent’s policy. The tribunal considered that the grievance investigation (up to 6 December 2021) was dealt with in a reasonable time frame; and the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a hypothetical comparator would have been treated; and the tribunal did not conclude that it was because of disability but rather because of the need to conduct a thorough investigation. (l) Did R move C’s Team and herself to be managed by a differing service on the 3rd November 2021 and without any prior discussion/consultation with her?

[121]This did happen. The Claimant and her team were moved. However, the tribunal did not conclude that the Claimant was treated differently than a conclude that it was because of disability. It happened in part because of the grievance which was tied to the breakdown of the relationship between the Claimant and Ms Minnis. (m) Did R remove C from attending the Senior Leadership Team Meetings on the10th November 2021 without consultation with her.

[122]This allegation is not made out on the facts. On the claimant’s own oral evidence she continued to attend such SLT meetings until late 2022. Victimisation (Equality Act 2010 ss27 and 39 (2)) Was there a protected act?

[123]The protected acts relied on by C are her grievances of November 10th 2020 and October 18th 2021. It is conceded by the Respondent that the grievance of 18 October 2021 is a protected act. It is not conceded that the grievance of 10 November 2020 is a protected act.

[124]The tribunal did not consider that the 10 November 2020 grievance was a protected act. There was a reference to harassment (but not in the sense meant in the Equality Act with reference to a protected act). There was reference to anxiety and a lack of support – but insufficient detail to amount to an allegation of a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. However we have considered whether the allegations of victimisation following this grievance were made out in any event. Did R refuse permission for C to undertake additional employment because of the grievance submitted on 10th November 2020?

[125]The tribunal found that this was not made out. It was not (in the end) an outright refusal – but rather a justified querying of the additional employment in 2021, the reason being that the Claimant had had a recent period of serious ill health and there was a valid concern that she needed to focus on her core role. It happened months after the 10 November 2020 grievance and there was no evidence that that grievance was in the mind of those not refusing but querying the additional employment point in 2021. Did R move C and her team because of the grievance submitted on 18th October 2021?

[126]The tribunal found that this was made out. C and her team were moved; and this did happen in part as a consequence of the Claimant having brought a grievance that did amount to a protected act, albeit that it also happened as a result of the decline in the relationship between the Claimant and her manager. It amounted to a detriment in that the Claimant was undermined in front of her team (and indeed there was an apology to the Claimant as to the manner in which it was communicated). Did R remove C from attending senior management meetings because of the grievances submitted by C on 10th November 2020 and 18th October 2021?

[127]The tribunal found that this was not made out on the facts. The Claimant’s evidence was that she was removed from attending management meetings specifically with Ms Minnis from 5 November 2021. However, the Claimant’s oral evidence was that she continued to be invited to SLT meetings until late 2022. The tribunal did not consider that the 10 November 2020 grievance was part of anyone’s reasoning in relation to these meetings. The 18 October 2021 grievance was a factor in the management meetings with Ms Minnis being cancelled (as Ms Minnis was consequently no longer managing the Claimant) but the tribunal did not find that the cancellation of those meetings was a detriment to the Claimant (or at least not a detriment distinct from that of being transferred to a different manager) and it is not the detriment in the list of issues – which specifically relates to the SLT meetings. Did the things at paragraph 2 a-k occur and was this because of the protected acts (1 and/or 2)?

[128]In light of the tribunal’s finding that the grievance of 10 November 2020 was not a protected act, all events claimed as victimisation which occurred chronologically before 18 October 2021, 2(a) to 2(g), must all inevitably fail for lack of a protected act. In any event, 2(a) and (b) pre-date both alleged protected acts and additionally fail for that reason.

[129]In addition, as set out above, 2(a), 2(e) and 2(k) were not made out on the facts and therefore there was no detriment.

[130]The tribunal was satisfied that the bringing of the earlier grievance was not the reason (or even a reason) for any of 2(a) to 2(k).

[131]In summary the only matter on which the Claimant succeeds in relation to her claim for victimisation is in relation to paragraph 11 of the list of issues – namely that C and her team were moved because of the protected act within the grievance submitted on 18 October 2021. Time limits

[132]In view of the one matter being upheld being clearly within the time limit, the issue of time limits falls away.

Summary

[133]The claimant’s claims fail and are dismissed in relation to her claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and direct discrimination.

[134]The claimant’s claims for victimisation also fail and are dismissed except for para 11 of the list of issues “Did R move C and her team because of the grievance submitted on 18th October 2021” which succeeds.

[135]A remedy hearing will be listed for 1 day. The parties should write in with their dates to avoid for the period to the end of 2025. The Claimant should submit a short supplementary witness statement, restricted to the issue of remedy, in relation to the one matter that was upheld to be sent to the Respondent by 29 August 2025, accompanied by any additional documents relevant to that issue if there are any.

[136]The parties are reminded that they can still make use of the services of ACAS and the parties are encouraged to reach an agreement as to any compensation to be paid to the Claimant. Useful information

Summary

[1]All judgments and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents.

[2]There is information about Employment Tribunal procedures, including case management and preparation, compensation for injury to feelings, and pension loss, here: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/

[3]The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-procedure- rules

[4]You can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if you think a legal mistake was made in an Employment Tribunal decision. There is more information here: https://www.gov.uk/appeal-employment-appeal-tribunal EJ W A Allen KC 23 July 2025 IN THE EAST LONDON EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Claim No. 3207431/2021 BETWEEN Ms R MODZA Claimant -AND- LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Respondent AGREED LIST OF ISSUES [DRAFT] Disability 1 Does the Claimant (“C”) have a physical or mental impairment? 2 Does that impairment have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on C’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities? 3 Did the impairment(s) have that effect at the time of the alleged discriminatory event(s) 4 The disability relied upon by C is Dyspraxia; Anxiety and Depression; Irritable Bowel Syndrome & Raynaud’s Disease Direct Disability Discrimination (EQA 2010 ss13(1) and 39

(2) C relies on a hypothetical comparator

[2]Did the following things happen?(a) In dealing with C’s grievance against Habon Ibrahim-Osman for bullying and harassment which she submitted in October 2019 did R i) Fail to deal with the grievance formally and ii) Deal with the grievance by way of informal mediation

(b) Did R fail to formally advise her of the outcome of a grievance submitted against her in April/May 2020

(d) Did R fail to undertake a return-to-work interview with C following C’s return to work in March 2021

(e) Did R fail to offer C a referral to Occupational Health during or following C’s sick leave between January 2021 and March 2021

(f) Did R fail to initiate the informal sickness procedures for C following C’s return to work in March 2021.

(g) Did R fail to implement the recommendations of Occupational health and based on their assessment of her and conducted on the 22nd June 2021. This includes failure to undertake a stress risk assessment and conduct weekly management support meetings with her.

(h) Did R refuse to sign off C’s declaration of interest, whereby C requested authorisation for additional employment in August 2021 and October 2021.

(i) Did R fail to provide supervision and a return-to-work interview in September 2021 upon C’s return from sick leave

(j) Did R fail to refer C to Occupational Health after they had, via Lissa-Marie Minnis, agreed to do so on the 20th October 2021

(k) Did R fail to deal with C’s grievance of the 18th October 2021 in a reasonable time frame.

(l) Did R move C’s Team and herself to be managed by a differing service on the 3rd November 2021 and without any prior discussion/consultation with her.

(m) Did R remove C from attending the Senior Leadership Team Meetings on the10th November 2021 without consultation with her.

[3]If established, has C proved facts from which the Tribunal can infer that the treatment was discriminatory in the absence of any explanation from R and, if so, has R shown that the treatment was not because of C’s disability Reasonable Adjustment (EQA 2010 ss20 (2), 21 and 39 (2)

[4]Did R apply a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) to C, namely requiring that she managed her assigned caseload; managing direct subordinates; doing shift work and out of hours managing of service users’ emergencies i.e., carrying out her full range of duties.

[5]Did that PCP put C at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who did not have C’s disabilities. It is C’s case that her disability meant that she was unable to cope with her increasing and more challenging workload during the period from the 31st January 2021 onwards 6. i) Did R have knowledge of C’s disabilities ii) Did R have knowledge of the substantial disadvantage

[7]Did R take such steps as it was reasonable to have taken in order to avoid that disadvantage? C contends that R should have taken the following steps(a) Undertaking a return to work interview on C’s return to work in March 2021

(b) Referring C to Occupational Health immediately following C’s return to work in March 2021

(d) Conducting a Stress Risk Assessment and as advised by Occupational Health in their report of June 2021

(e) Conducting weekly management support meetings and as advised by Occupational Health in their report of June 2021 Victimisation (EQA 2010 ss27 and 39 (2)

[8]Was there a protected act? The protected acts relied on by C is her grievances of November 10th 2020 and October 18th 2021

[9]Did the grievances of 10th November 2020 and 18th October 2021 amount to protected acts falling within s.27(1)

[10]Did R refuse permission for C to undertake additional employment because of the grievance submitted on 10th November 2020

[11]Did R move C and her team because of the grievance submitted on 18th October 2021

[12]Did R remove C from attending senior management meetings because of the grievances submitted by C on 10th November 2020 and 18th October 2021

[13]Did the things at paragraph 2 (a)-(k) occur and was this because of the protected acts (1 and/or 2) Time limits

[14]Does the conduct set out at paragraphs 2-13 above, or any part of that conduct, amount to ‘conduct extending over a period’ within the meaning of EQA 2010, s123 (3)?

[15]Were any of the Claimant’s complaints brought outside the relevant time limit specified in EQA 2010 s23?

[16]If so, is it just and equitable to extend time for the bringing of those complaints?