Ms C Bright v Brighter Futures for Children: 3301936/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3301936/2024

Between

Ms C BrightClaimant

Brighter Futures for ChildrenRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Annand

Mr Deane (instructed by Counsel) for claimant

Mr Lawrence (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 16 December 2024

REASONS

Introduction

[1]A hearing was held under Rule 21 on 13 December 2024 by video.

[2]On 15 February 2024, the Claimant had presented a claim for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

[3]The Respondent did not present a Response in time. The Respondent later applied to extend time to present a Response, but that application was not successful. On 24 October 2024, Employment Judge Anstis held a preliminary hearing. He listed the case for a Rule 21 hearing on liability and remedy on 13 December 2024. He ordered that the Respondent was permitted to make submissions on liability, cross examine the Claimant on matters of remedy and make submissions on remedy. The Respondent was not permitted to produce any witness evidence or documentary evidence.

[5]The Claimant provided a separate witness statement regarding remedy. The only compensation claimed was for an award for injury to feelings and interest on that award. The Claimant was cross examined by Mr Lawrence on behalf of the Respondent. I heard submissions from both parties on remedy. There was not time for me to reach a decision on the appropriate amount of compensation to award and to give oral reasons to the parties, and therefore I reserved the decision on remedy.

Findings of Fact

[6]Mr Deane, on behalf of the Claimant, submitted that the Respondent’s actions had not been a one off incident, but a course of conduct lasting for 5-6 months. He submitted the Respondent’s actions had shown little regard for the well being of the Claimant and fell very short of the standards that would be expected of a reasonable employer dealing with a disabled employee. The effect on the Claimant was that she felt she was not believed, felt humiliated, and felt the Respondent was trying to manage her out of her role. He pointed to the Claimant’s grievance, which had been written nearly a month after she had received the letter on 14 September 2023 informing her that her reasonable adjustments would be ceasing in October 2023, and he pointed to an email in the bundle in which the Claimant noted that even writing the grievance was raising her anxiety. Mr Deane suggested an award of £20,000 for injury to feeling was appropriate.

[7]In addition to these submissions, I also took into account the evidence in the Claimant’s witness statement and her evidence during cross examination, and in particular, the following points:

[1]The Claimant started working for Reading Borough Council, who own the Respondent in 1992.

[2]She was very proud when she secured promotion in 2017 to Assistant Team Manager and was happy when she was reassured that she would not need to undertake home and community visits.

[3]As a result of the Respondent’s actions, she felt she was not believed.

[4]She started suffering badly with anxiety, having nightmares, waking up feeling scared, having heart palpitations and being unable to fall back asleep.

[5]The Claimant’s perception was that the reasonable adjustments which had been in place for some time had become an annoyance to the Respondent.

[6]The Claimant described the letter she received on 14 September 2023, which said the Respondent would be removing her reasonable adjustments by 27 October 2023, as horrendous. She described feeling humiliated, betrayed, incredulous and shocked. She explained her anxiety considerably increased, and she dreaded losing her job, and asked herself obsessively, “How am I going to live if I lose my job? Who is going to employee me?”

[7]The Claimant was worried about finding a new role as she is aged 57, has considerable disabilities, and has not had a job interview in 30 years.

[8]Mr Lawrence, on behalf of the Respondent, submitted that the Claimant had been forewarned to some extent about the contents of the letter dated 14 September 2023 as she had been advised that her risk assessment would be discussed at a meeting and that would necessarily entail a discussion about her reasonable adjustments, and there was some email correspondence in August 2023 which set out the Respondent’s rationale for wanting to discuss the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments with her. Therefore, he submitted the letter of 14 September 2023 did not come wholly out of the blue. The Claimant managed to submit a grievance, had managed to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, and had shown fortitude under cross examination. She also expressed some gratitude in her grievance about the fact she had been able to have a phased return to work. In the end, the Respondent did not remove the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments, and the Claimant still has some confidence in her employer, even if it has been undermined by the events. Mr Lawrence submitted an award between the middle and top end of the lower band would be suitable compensation.

[9]I carefully considered the arguments put forward by both sides. I decided that an award of £13,000 was appropriate compensation for injury to feelings. I considered this to be a suitable amount because it was apparent that the Claimant has suffered considerably as a result of the Respondent’s actions. It was not a one off incident, but a series of events over several months. It was not just the letter of 14 September 2023 which caused the Claimant distress, but also the fact that two separate meetings were held in her absence, which I accepted gave the Claimant the impression that, after many years of service, she did not matter. I also accepted that the manner in which the Respondent drafted the Occupational Health referral form gave the Claimant the impression that she was not being believed about the impact of her disabilities on her abilities, and I accept that would have been particularly hurtful, given the extent of the limitations caused by the Claimant’s disabilities.

[10]I also accepted the Claimant’s evidence that as a result of the Respondent’s actions she felt considerable distress, such that she had difficulties sleeping, felt extremely anxious, and worried a great deal about the prospect of being unemployed. I accepted her evidence that the events have considerably undermined her confidence in her employer. While the Claimant was informed fairly quickly that the reasonable adjustments would remain in place while her grievance was pending, that did not give her sufficient reassurance such that her anxiety was alleviated, as she was not aware at that time what the outcome of the grievance would be. It was possible the grievance would not be upheld, and the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments would be removed, she would be expected to find a new role, and if she did not, she faced the prospect of losing her employment.

[11]For these reasons, I concluded the award should be in the middle band, but towards the lower end. Thankfully the Claimant did not lose her role, and the reasonable adjustments previously agreed were not removed.

[12]For the purposes of calculating the interest on the award for injury to feeling, I was not provided with a date on which the Respondent sent the referral to Occupational Health (the first act of harassment) but it was alleged to have occurred in July 2023. I therefore calculated 8% interest from 31 July 2023 to the date of the remedy hearing, 13 December 2024, which came to £1,427.65.

[1]A hearing was held under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 on 13 December 2024 by video.

[2]On 15 February 2024, the Claimant presented a Claim Form bringing claims of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

[4]For the hearing on 13 December 2024, the Claimant provided a witness statement, a bundle of documents, and a Schedule of Loss. I heard submissions from both parties on the issue of liability. I gave oral reasons for my decision on liability at the hearing. I found the Claimant had been subjected to five acts of unfavorable treatment which amounted to discrimination arising from disability, and I found the Claimant had been subjected to nine acts of harassment related to disability. I went on to hear the evidence relating to remedy. However, as there was not time to give an oral judgment on remedy as well, I reserved my decision. A reserved remedy judgment was sent to the parties on 17 December 2024.

[5]On 18 December 2024, the Claimant’s solicitor requested written reasons for the judgment on liability. Findings of Fact The Claimant’s medical conditions

[6]In 2009, the Claimant was diagnosed as having Rheumatoid Arthritis. She was diagnosed with having Lymphoedema and Lipoedema in 2019, although she had been experiencing varying degrees of leg swelling which caused intermittent infections and required medical treatment since around 2012. For example, in 2013, the Claimant was hospitalised due to Cellulitis.

[7]The Claimant’s Lymphoedema causes swelling and pain to both of her legs. She also suffers from leg ulcers as a result of chronic swelling. The Claimant is at high risk of infection leading to Cellulitis which is treated with antibiotics.

[8]As a result of her conditions, the Claimant needs to wear double compression bandages which are applied to her legs twice a week. They reach from her toes to her knees.

[9]Between August and December 2023, the Claimant had her compression bandages on her right leg applied by her GP three times per week. The compression bandages are needed to treat the swelling and the ulcers. The ulcers appear as open wounds in her legs, and for the past 3 years she has been suffering with an ongoing leakage of fluid in her right leg. As a result, she has to wear approximately 12 medium and large dressing pads on the right leg, which are changed two or three times per week at her GP surgery. The leaking fluid can be particularly unpleasant for the Claimant.

[10]As a result of the Claimant’s conditions, her mobility is impaired. She uses a taxi to carry out essential tasks such as shopping and attending the GP surgery to apply her bandages. She can only walk for very short distances, using a mobility aid, before needing to stop and sit down.

[11]Due to the symptoms of her Rheumatoid Arthritis, the Claimant requires a bilateral total knee replacement. However, this surgery cannot be scheduled whilst she has open wounds on her legs.

[12]In April 2022, following an assessment from a private Occupational Therapist, the Claimant renovated her bathroom to fit a raised disabled toilet and a walkin shower with a chair. She cannot use a normal shower or a bathtub as she would not be able to get in or out safely, and she would struggle to use a normal toilet as it is too low for her, and she may hurt herself getting up. The Claimant’s employment

[13]In 2013, whilst working for the Respondent as a Social Worker in the Access and Assessment Team, the Claimant experienced various degrees of swelling and Cellulitis infections in her legs which led to sickness absences. As previously mentioned, in March 2013, the infection was so serious that the Claimant had to be hospitalised.

[14]It became clear that attending home and community visits was too much and too risky for the Claimant due to the state of her legs and her Arthritis. Therefore, in or around April 2013, as a reasonable adjustment the Claimant was moved to work as a social worker in the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) team where attending home or community visits were not required.

[15]The Claimant could not, and still cannot, attend community and home visits because of her limited mobility due to her Rheumatoid Arthritis and the symptoms of her Lymphedema and Lipoedema. Due to her limited mobility she struggles to walk for more than a few meters. She cannot climb more than a few steps. She almost exclusively travels by taxi. Therefore, she would be unable to attend any home or community visits where the entrance is more than a few steps away from where the taxi leaves her or if the home is not on the ground floor and there is no lift. Also, she can only sit on chairs that are high enough for her. If the seating is too low, she would be unable to get out of the chair. She would also struggle to use a toilet that is too low or that it is not accessible to disabled people. There is also the risk of infection. Homes or other places where there are animals or children running around, and where the Claimant could scratch her legs, could cause her leg ulcers to become infected.

[16]In 2016, the Claimant was promoted to Assistant Team Manager in the MASH.

[17]In 2017, the Claimant was offered the role of Assistant Team Manager in the Children and Young People’s disability (CYPD) Team. Before accepting the role, the Claimant asked the CYPD’s Team Manager, Ms Critchley, whether the adjustment of not attending home and community visits would continue in the CYPD Team and she explained that otherwise she could not accept the role. Ms Critchley reassured the Claimant that she would not be required to attend home and community visits. The Claimant accepted the role.

[18]Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic the Claimant worked from the office 5 days per week. During the pandemic, the Claimant’s department worked from home.

[19]In March 2022, the Director for Children’s Social care, Maria Young, asked the Claimant’s department to return working from the office two days per week. The Claimant told the Deputy Service Manager, Nicola Norris, that she could not return to working from the office due to the state of her health. The Claimant was referred for an Occupational Health assessment.

[20]On 5 April 2022, the Claimant attended the Occupational Health assessment, and the Occupational Health Advisor recommended that the Claimant continued to be allowed to work from home and that she was not fit to work from the office. The Occupational Health Advisor said it was likely the Claimant met the definition of disabled under the Equality Act, and noted she was unable to provide a timescale for when the Claimant’s conditions were going to improve sufficiently and concluded that the adjustments were ongoing.

[21]From around April 2022, the Claimant stopped accompanying social workers to Court, due to the risks related to her legs and the fact that some Courts are not accessible to her due to her limited mobility.

[22]In April 2022, the Respondent carried out a restructure of the service which led to an increase in the Claimant’s workload because the Claimant was tasked with the supervision of all the social workers. The Claimant was concerned about the increased workload. Ms Norris told the Claimant that it was the Team Manager’s role to assist the Claimant clearing out her work whenever it was too much for her to complete.

[23]In June 2022, Ms Brahilika started working as Team Manager in the CYPD Team.

[24]In the summer 2022, in preparation for an Ofsted review, the Claimant’s department was provided with Business Support Officers tasked with taking minutes of the supervision meetings and of the child in need meetings. This was to make sure that the minutes of these meetings were uploaded onto the system in a timely manner, as per Ofsted standards.

[25]In September 2022 the Claimant attended a meeting with Ms Norris and Ms Brahilika to discuss the reasonable adjustment of working from home. It was decided that the reasonable adjustment should remain in place.

[26]On 24 February 2023, the Claimant attended a meeting with Ms Brahilika to complete a stress risk assessment. During the meeting Ms Brahilika said that if the Claimant did not want the stress of the performance indicators (PI) she could have applied for a job in the Respondent’s Early Help Department.

[27]On 8 March 2023, the Claimant attended a meeting with Ms Brahilika and Dudley Foster, the Respondent’s Head of Service. The subject of the meeting’s invite was “Audits”. However, within minutes the meeting turned to the Claimant’s performance and Mr Foster asked the Claimant whether the purported issues were related to her performance or health. The Claimant acknowledged that although her health had an impact, the purported issues with her performance were the result of the increased workload rather than her health.

[28]On 29 March 2023, the Claimant was invited to attend an absence review meeting, even though she had only taken 3 days of sick leave in the previous 12 months. When this was raised by the Claimant’s trade union representative, Ms Brahilika responded on 30 March 2023 noting: “I had prior conversations with Caroline about her performance, which led that Caroline’s health issues can be an underlying cause that is affecting her performance, so I have called this meeting to understand further Caroline’s health and how this impacts her day-to-day work and performance, in general, to explore what other support can be put in place to help her health and well-being to improve the performance. The reason to do this formal meeting is that Caroline will feel supported by her companion, and we believe the managing sickness policy will provide a structured and supportive process as we work with Caroline going forward.”

[29]The Claimant’s trade union representative raised a concern that it was not appropriate for the Respondent to use the absence review process.

[30]On 31 March 2023, Ms Brahilika responded stating she would seek to explore her concerns about the Claimant’s performance under the performance and capabilities route. This was not followed up and the Claimant was not asked to attend any performance or capabilities meeting.

[31]On 11 April 2023, the Claimant met with the new service manager, Ms Wasiq.

[32]The Claimant was on annual leave from 24 April to 12 May 2023 and then on sick leave due to Cellulitis affecting her legs, a chest infection and a flare up of her Rheumatoid Arthritis from 15 May 2023.

[33]When the Claimant was on sick leave, Ms Brahilika referred the Claimant for an Occupational Health assessment. Ms Brahilika asked the Occupational Health advisor to assess the Claimant’s fitness to work, her ability to meet the job description for the role in light of the demands of the role and her ill health, assess how her diagnosis impacted on her physical health and emotional wellbeing and the impact of these on her ability to perform her duties, advise on a phased return to work and establish whether the Claimant was registered disabled.

[34]In the referral it was noted: “Caroline has requested a virtual health assessment and is happy for the OH to contact her on personal mobile phone number given above. However, it would be beneficial to have a face to face assessment as Caroline has not been in the office for the last 3 years and as such can OH explore undertaking an assessment at Caroline’s home address if Caroline is in agreement.”

[35]The Occupational Health adviser, Ms Weald, sent the referral to the Claimant and explained she did not do home visits and explained that she mostly did appointments by telephone. The Claimant was upset when she saw the referral and in particular was upset by the comment that she had not attended the office in three years. On 2 March 2023, she had attended an Initial Child Protection Conference at the Reading Civic Centre. She was also upset by the fact that Ms Brahilika had asked to know if the Claimant was registered as disabled. The Claimant and Ms Brahilika had worked together for over a year by this time and so Ms Brahilika was well aware of the Claimant’s mobility issues.

[36]On 27 July 2023, the Claimant had an Occupational Health appointment by phone, and a report was written up by Ms Weald. The report stated, “On the referral, you state if would be beneficial to have a face-to-face assessment, but you have not stated what the benefit would be.”

[37]In response to the question of whether the Claimant’s health impacted on her ability to meet the job description, the report stated that “there is no evidence following today’s assessment that Caroline’s health conditions prevent her from meeting the requirements of her job description”. In response to the question on how her conditions impacted on her physical health the report stated that the Claimant’s mobility is significantly impaired by her Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lymphoedema.

[38]The Occupational Health advisor recommended that the Claimant be allowed to work from home and noted that she was not fit to attend home or school visits or chair meetings away from Civic offices. The Occupational Health advisor also made suggestions about the Claimant returning to work with reduced hours on a phased basis. The Occupational Health advisor indicated that the Claimant could attend the office when symptoms allowed.

[39]On 14 August 2023, the Claimant attended a sickness absence review meeting with Ms Wasiq and HR Manager, Jamie Frost-Bridges.

[40]In relation to the Occupational Health report, Ms Wasiq stated that the report was not clear as it did not address matters like working from the office, attending home and community visits and how long the GP appointments to apply her bandages would last. Ms Wasiq suggested that the Claimant be reassessed. The Claimant did not agree to that suggestion.

[41]The Claimant understandably felt that the Respondent was suspicious about her conditions and the extent to which she required the adjustments in place. However, given the comments made in the Report about the Claimant’s mobility being significantly impaired, it was not clear why any further details that the Respondent wanted could not have been obtained by simply asking the Claimant. For example, if the Respondent wanted to know how long the GP appointments to apply or change her bandages would last, it is not clear why they did not simply ask the Claimant how long, on average, her appointments had lasted previously.

[42]Furthermore, if the Respondent wanted more details they could simply have asked the Occupational Health advisor to provide a more detailed report. The insistence that the Claimant attend a further assessment, so soon after having had an assessment, gave the impression the Respondent were trying to obtain different advice from the Occupational Health advisor.

[43]In the meeting, the Claimant explained that she was hoping to start attending the office one day per week in a few months’ time with a view to progressively increasing her attendance.

[44]Ms Wasiq then brought up the issue of the Claimant attending home and community visits. The Claimant explained that she had not attended one of those visits since 2013. Ms Wasiq said that the service was on an improvement journey and that as part of it there was an expectation for managers to be on site regularly. She added that supporting social workers attending visits was also needed. It was the first time since the Claimant started working in the CYPD team in 2017 that the Claimant had been told that she needed to attend home and community visits. She said she would be unable to undertake those types of visits.

[45]On 21 August 2023, the Claimant started her phased return to work.

[46]On 31 August 2023, the Claimant met with Ms Wasiq again. Ms Wasiq insisted that the Claimant be referred for another Occupational Health assessment to understand from a health perspective why she could not work from the office 3 days per week and why she could not attend home and community visits. The Claimant considered that these matters had been covered already by the Occupational Health advisor in the previous Occupational Health assessment and asked Ms Wasiq to put in writing the reasons why a new Occupational Health assessment or a revision of the July assessment was necessary. The Claimant understandably felt under pressure, and felt she was not believed by Ms Wasiq about the impact that her disabilities had on her.

[47]On 4 September 2023, Ms Wasiq sent the Claimant’s trade union representative an email addressing the areas where she was seeking clarity following the Occupational Health assessment. These included: a) The medical barriers that stopped the Claimant from meeting the requirements of her role in the immediate, medium and long term. b) The barriers stopping the Claimant working from the office and the length of any adjustments needed. c) The Claimant’s mobility and what adjustments were needed to help the Claimant meet the part of her role that required site visits. d) Ms Wasiq wanted to know whether the Claimant was able to drive or how long she could walk for. e) The length of the Claimant’s medical appointments to apply the bandages to her legs.

[48]There was then a series of emails between Ms Wasiq and the Claimant’s trade union representative, who challenged Ms Wasiq for changing the Claimant’s job description without her knowledge and consent and reminded her that the Respondent was still under a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

[49]On 12 September 2023 the Claimant met with Ms Wasiq and Ms Brahilika for a second absence review meeting. The Claimant was accompanied by her trade union representative, Ms Palfrey. During the meeting there was a discussion about the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments, and the Claimant reiterated that she was hoping to work from the office potentially on Wednesdays from November 2023, with a view to increasing her days in the office gradually. Ms Wasiq repeated that the Claimant was expected to work from the office and accompany social workers to home and community visits.

[50]Ms Wasiq asked again that the Claimant consented to a re-assessment or to a review of the July 2023 OH assessment, but the Claimant continued to refuse to provide her consent. A further meeting to discuss the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments was proposed. During the meeting, Ms Palfrey expressed how uncomfortable she was with the tone that Ms Wasiq and Ms Brahilika were using with the Claimant and said that it was bordering on disability discrimination.

[51]On 13 September 2023, Ms Brahilika sent the Claimant a draft risk assessment and asked the Claimant if she was available to discuss it in the afternoon. The meeting was postponed to the following morning. Ms Brahilika asked, and the Claimant agreed, to start their usual catch up meeting 30 minutes earlier and to end it 30 minutes later than usual to enable sufficient time for a catch up as well as to discuss the risk assessment.

[52]On the morning of 14 September 2023, the Claimant was unwell and went on sick leave due to a relapse of cellulitis and a chest infection.

[53]During the morning of 14 September 2023, the Claimant received an email from Ms Wasiq stating that she had intended to meet with the Claimant to discuss her reasonable adjustments but that the Claimant was unable to attend the meeting on that day.

[54]A letter was attached to the email explaining that Ms Wasiq had arranged to meet with the Claimant on 14 September 2023 to discuss her reasonable adjustments, performance data, and service demands. The Claimant had not received an invitation to any such meeting.

[55]The letter focused on the need for the social workers to have the presence of their line manager in the office and the need for the manager to accompany them during visits to challenging cases as well as court cases.

[56]The letter provided a list of adjustments that the Respondent could no longer accommodate: a) Not working from the Civic Office, with irregular attendance to the office. b) No visits to home or meetings in the community. c) To be supported with a business Support officer to record supervisions. d) For the team manager to complete work, to assist clearing her work tray, undertake supervision on her behalf and doing case allocation.

[57]The Claimant was advised that the adjustments would cease on 27 October 2023 and that she should seek suitable alternative employment within the company. The letter concluded with a warning that if the Claimant was unable to find a suitable alternative role the next step would be to escalate the matter to a capability hearing.

[58]I accepted the Claimant’s evidence that she was devastated to read the allegations that had been made about her performance and that the reasonable adjustments were going to be removed.

[59]The Claimant remained on sick leave until 26 September 2023.

[60]After returning from sick leave, the Claimant lodged a grievance on 11 October 2023.

[61]On 26 October 2023, the Claimant received an email from Suchita Swain, in the Respondent’s HR department, confirming that until the grievance was concluded her reasonable adjustments would remain in place.

[62]The Claimant attended a grievance investigation meeting on 29 November 2023.

[63]On 8 January 2024, the Claimant was invited to attend a grievance meeting. The grievance meeting was originally scheduled on 23 January, but it was postponed to 30 January 2024.

[64]The Claimant was on sick leave on 30 January 2024 due to a Cellulitis infection in her leg and could not attend the grievance hearing.

[65]Despite this, the Claimant was sent the grievance outcome stating that the grievance outcome meeting took place on 30 January and that the Claimant had attended it and was accompanied by Ms Palfrey.

[66]Once again, a meeting to discuss the matter of the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments and the treatment she had received due to her disabilities was conducted without her input. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that this made her feel like she did not matter.

[67]The Claimant appealed the grievance outcome and attended an appeal meeting. The Claimant’s reasonable adjustments were not subsequently removed.

[68]The Claimant contacted Acas for Early Conciliation (EC) purposes on 6 December 2023 and the EC certificate was issued on 17 January 2024. The Claim Form was submitted on 15 February 2024. The Respondent did not submit a Response in time.

[69]As previously set out, at an earlier hearing held by EJ Anstis, it was decided the Respondent would only be permitted to make submissions on liability but not participate in the hearing relating to liability in any other way. The Claimant’s evidence was therefore unchallenged, and the Respondent was not able to call any witnesses.

[70]The Claimant brought claims under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability, and harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The law The definition of disability - Section 6 of the Equality Act

The law

[71]Under section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 a person has a disability if that person has ‘a physical or mental impairment’ which has a ‘substantial and long-term adverse effect on [the person’s] ability to carry out normal day-today activities’. The burden of proof is on a claimant to show that he or she satisfies this definition.

[72]In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] I.C.R. 302 the EAT stated that tribunals should look at the evidence by reference to four different questions: 1) Did the claimant have a mental and/or physical impairment? 2) Did the impairment affect the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities? 3) Was the adverse condition substantial? 4) Was the adverse condition long term?

[73]In Wigginton v Cowie and ors t/a Baxter International (A Partnership) EAT 0322/09 the EAT confirmed that these four questions should be posed sequentially and not together, although in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd

[2022] IRLR 159

, the Court of Appeal stressed that it does not amount to an error of law for a tribunal to omit to set out in its judgment the four conditions identified in Goodwin and deal with each methodically in turn, so long as, in substance, all relevant matters are addressed when determining whether the particular claimant was disabled within the terms of section 6(1).

[74]Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010, the effect of an impairment is long-term if:(a) it has lasted for at least 12 months, or

(b) it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or

(c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. If an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.

[75]In the case of Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd

[2002] ICR 729

, the EAT confirmed that the time at which to assess the disability, and whether there is an impairment that has a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, is the date of the alleged discriminatory act. This is also the material time when determining whether the impairment has a long-term effect - Tesco Stores Limited v Tennant (

UKEAT/0167/19/OO

). 76. ‘Substantial’ is defined in section 212(1) of the Equality Act as meaning “more than minor or trivial”. In Goodwin v Patent Office, the EAT held: ‘What the Act is concerned with is an impairment on the person’s ability to carry out activities. The fact that a person can carry out such activities does not mean that his ability to carry them out has not been impaired. Thus, for example, a person may be able to cook, but only with the greatest difficulty.” Appendix 1 to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Code of Practice on Employment (2011) states that account should be taken not only of evidence that a person is performing a particular activity less well but also of evidence that ‘a person avoids doing things which, for example, cause pain, fatigue or substantial social embarrassment; or because of a loss of energy and motivation’— para 9.

[77]Appendix 1 to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Employment (‘the EHRC Employment Code’) states that ‘normal day-today activities’ are activities that are carried out by most men or women on a fairly regular and frequent basis, and gives examples such as walking, driving, typing and forming social relationships. The government’s ‘Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability’ states that it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of day-to-day activities. However, in general, day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or daily basis. The examples given are shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities.

[78]In determining whether a person’s impairment has a substantial effect on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, the effects of measures such as medical treatment or corrective aids on the impairment should be ignored. If an impairment would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect but for the fact that measures are being taken to treat or correct it, it is to be treated as having that effect — paragraph 5(1), Schedule 1, Equality Act 2010. Discrimination arising from disability – Section 15 of the Equality Act

[79]Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 states (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if— (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[80]In Secretary of State for Justice and anor v Dunn EAT 0234/16 the EAT identified the following four elements that must be made out in order for the claimant to succeed in a section 15 claim: a) there must be unfavourable treatment b) there must be something that arises in consequence of the claimant’s disability c) the unfavourable treatment must be because of (i.e. caused by) the something that arises in consequence of the disability, and d) the alleged discriminator cannot show that the unfavourable treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[81]The EHRC Employment Code indicates that unfavourable treatment should be construed synonymously with ‘disadvantage’. It states: ‘Often, the disadvantage will be obvious and it will be clear that the treatment has been unfavourable; for example, a person may have been refused a job, denied a work opportunity or dismissed from their employment. But sometimes unfavourable treatment may be less obvious. Even if an employer thinks that they are acting in the best interests of a disabled person, they may still treat that person unfavourably’ — para 5.7. Harassment – Section 26 of the Equality Act

[82]Section 26(1) of Equality Act 2010 states “A person(a) (A) harasses another

(b) (B) if (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) The conduct has the purpose or effect of (i) Violating B’s dignity, or (ii) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.”

[83]Section 26(3) states, “In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account -(a) the perception of B;

(b) the other circumstances of the case;

[84]In Reed and anor v Stedman

[1999] IRLR 299

, the EAT held that the word ‘unwanted’ is essentially the same as ‘unwelcome’ or ‘uninvited’. The EAT in Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English EAT 0316/10 pointed out that unwanted conduct means conduct that is unwanted by the employee.

[85]Section 26(1)(a) requires that the conduct in question be ‘related’ to a relevant protected characteristic. The EHRC Employment Code states that the necessary connection with a protected characteristic can arise where ‘the unwanted conduct is related to the protected characteristic, but does not take place because of the protected characteristic’ (para 7.10).

[86]In Prospects for People with Learning Difficulties v Harris EAT 0612/11, the claimant suffered from a musculoskeletal condition that limited her strength and dexterity. She worked as a carer which required her to have a first-aid certificate. However, when she went on the first-aid course she was unable to complete the CPR part of the training owing to her disability and so was denied the certificate. Her employer suspended her from work as a result. An employment tribunal found that the suspension, without prior discussion, consultation or consideration of alternatives, was an act of harassment, and the EAT upheld this decision. Issues for the Tribunal to decide Discrimination arising from disability

[87]The Claimant claimed that the following acts amount to ‘unfavourable treatment’ because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities: 1) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent conducted a meeting to discuss the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments in the Claimant’s absence. 2) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent revoked the Claimant’s 3) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent advised the Claimant that she should seek an alternative role within the Respondent. 4) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent informed the Claimant that should she be unable to secure alternative employment, a capability procedure would be started against her. 5) On 30 January 2024, the Respondent conducted the grievance meeting in the Claimant’s absence and/or concluded the grievance process without providing the Claimant with a chance to discuss her grievance at a grievance meeting.

[88]Did the above events take place?

[89]If so, did they take place because of “something arising in consequence of the Claimant’s disabilities”, namely a) her sickness absence, or b) her inability to work from the office regularly, to attend home and community visits and court hearings?

[90]If so, was the treatment a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? Harassment related to disabilities

[91]The Claimant claims the following amount to ‘unwanted conduct’ related to her disabilities: 1) In July 2023 Ms Brahilika’s suggestion in the OH referral that conducting the assessment face to face would be beneficial. This is despite the fact that the Claimant suffers from reduced mobility and that she had attended her previous OH assessment remotely. 2) In July 2023 Ms Brahilika asking in the OH referral that the OH Assessor confirms whether the Claimant is registered disabled and what support she received as a result. 3) On 14 August 2023 Ms Wasiq informing the Claimant that she needed more clarity and details to better understands the Claimant’s health and her needs in relation to work. This included details about the Claimant’s ability to work from the office and to attend visits and meetings with Social Workers, and Ms Wasiq’s suggestion that the Claimant be re-assessed by the OH assessor. This was despite the fact that the OH assessment on 27 July 2023 addressed the points Ms Wasiq wanted to seek clarity on. 4) On 31 August 2023 Ms Wasiq’s insisting with the Claimant during a back to work catch up meeting that the Claimant be re-referred for another OH assessment to understand, from a health perspective, why she could not work from the office 3 days per week and why she could not undertake home and community visits. 5) On 4 September 2023, the email from Ms Wasiq to the Claimant setting out the areas she wanted the OH Assessor to clarify. These included: - The medical barriers that stopped the Claimant from meeting the requirements of her role in the immediate, medium and long term. - The barriers to working from the office and the length of any adjustments needed, on the basis that the Respondent expected all staff to attend the office at least three days per week and the Claimant was expected to support Social Workers, ideally in person. - The Claimant’s mobility and how her conditions impacted on her functionality on a day to day basis, for example whether the Claimant was able to drive or how long could she walk for. This was requested on the basis that the Claimant was expected to accompany Social Worker during visits for particularly challenging cases and because the Claimant, as a line manager, was expected to supervise Social workers in person. - The length of the Claimant’s medical appointments to apply her bandages. Ms Wasiq asked the Claimant to let her know whether the Claimant consented to a new OH assessment to review the July OH assessment. 6) On 11 September 2023 the email from Ms Wasiq to the Claimant’s union representative, where Ms Wasiq wrote that she needed the updated OH information as part of her decision making process into the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments, all staff were contracted to work from the office and that there was an expectation for Assistant Team Managers, such as the Claimant, to be in the office to assist their team at least 3 days per week, as decided by the Respondent’s Director, and the service was being aligned to sit under the Head of Service of Safeguarding and Family Help. This meant that the Assistant Team Manager’s role was made consistent across the service and that Social Workers needed their manager to support them during challenging cases and intervene and mediate in case of disputes between parents and Social Workers. Ms Wasiq also stated that Assistant Team Managers were expected to attend court with Social Workers and to observe Social Workers in line with the Supervision Policy. 7) On 12 September 2023 Ms Wasiq reiterating the requirement for the Claimant to work from the office and to accompany Social Workers to visits, and insisting that the Claimant give her consent to a OH reassessment as a follow up of the July OH assessment. 8) On 14 September 2023 Ms Wasiq claiming in her letter that receiving support to record supervisions onto children’s records and the assistance provided by the team manager amounted to reasonable adjustments and claiming that they were being revoked. 9) On 14 September 2023 Ms Wasiq writing to the Claimant that she should seek alternative employment and that a capability procedure would be triggered should she be unable to secure an alternative role.

[92]Did the above events take place? If so, did it amount to unwanted conduct?

[93]Did it relate to disability?

[94]Did the conduct have the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant? The Tribunal will take into account the Claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The Tribunal’s conclusions Conclusions on disability

[95]There is little doubt the Claimant met the definition of disabled set out in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 over the relevant period of her claim, which was from July 2023 to January 2024. She has physical impairments, by virtue of having Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lymphoedema and Lipedema, which had (and continue to have) a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

[96]The Claimant needs to have a double knee replacement because the impact of her conditions on her mobility is so severe. As noted above, the Claimant cannot walk more than a few steps or go up more than a few stairs, and she needs to use a mobility aid. She also has had accommodations made to her bathroom at home as she is unable to get in and out of the bath safely without these accommodations. There is no doubt that her conditions have a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, namely walking, climbing stairs, and washing herself at home in a bath.

[97]The Claimant was diagnosed with having Rheumatoid Arthritis in 2009 and was diagnosed with having Lymphoedema and Lipoedema in 2019, although she had been experiencing varying degrees of leg swelling which caused intermittent infections and required medical treatment from around 2012. The Claimant was reassured in 2017 that she would not need to undertake home or community visits because by then the impact of her conditions on her mobility meant she could not undertake those types of visits. There is therefore no doubt that by the relevant period, which started in July 2023, the Claimant’s physical impairments had been having a substantial and longterm adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities for considerably longer than 12 months. Discrimination arising from Disability Allegation 1

[98]The first allegation of unfavourable treatment is “On 14 September 2023 the Respondent conducted a meeting to discuss the Claimant’s reasonable adjustments in the Claimant’s absence”. I accepted from the Claimant’s evidence and the documentary evidence that this occurred, and I found that this did amount to ‘unfavourable treatment’. It is difficult to understand why any employer would hold a meeting to discuss something as personal as the reasonable adjustments needed for a disabled member of staff in their absence. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that holding the meeting in her absence gave her the impression that she did not matter.

[99]The Claimant contends that the unfavourable treatment arose because of “something arising in consequence of her disability”, namely her sickness absence. I found that was the reason why the meeting went ahead without her. The Claimant was absent from work for a disability related reason, yet despite this, the meeting went ahead without her.

[100]There was no evidence to suggest the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is hard to understand why the meeting was not simply postponed. The fact that it was not strongly gives the impression the Respondent had already made the decisions set out in the subsequent letter and therefore saw no point in a further meeting and instead wished to proceed to convey the decision to the Claimant. Allegations 2,3 and 4

[101]I have considered the second, third and fourth allegations together: 2) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent revoked the Claimant’s 3) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent advised the Claimant that she should seek an alternative role within the Respondent. 4) On 14 September 2023, the Respondent informed the Claimant that should she be unable to secure alternative employment, a capability procedure would be started against her.

[102]The events set out in the allegations occurred, as evidenced by the letter sent to the Claimant on 14 September 2023.

[103]I find in each case the allegation amounted to “unfavourable treatment”. It was obviously to the Claimant’s detriment that she was being told that the reasonable adjustments, which had been in place for some time, were to cease, very soon, and that she should seek an alternative role. It was obviously to the Claimant’s detriment that she was being advised that should she be unable to secure alternative employment, a capability procedure would be started against her. She faced the prospect of being unemployed.

[104]There are circumstances where businesses genuinely cannot accommodate some reasonable adjustments on an on-going basis. However, any amendments or removal of adjustments, which are going to make life more difficult for disabled employees needs to be dealt with tactfully and diplomatically. The reasons why the reasonable adjustments cannot be accommodated need to be explained very carefully. It should not simply be the case that employers convey the message to disabled staff that they would rather the disabled employee were able to fulfil all aspects of the role. That does not respect the dignity of those disabled employees who, through no fault of their own are not able to complete all the requirements of their role, such as regularly attending the workplace. Diplomacy and tact were sorely lacking in this case. It was unquestionably unfavourable treatment for the Claimant to have this information conveyed to her in this manner, following a meeting which took place in her absence.

[105]The Claimant contends that the unfavourable treatment arose because of “something arising in consequence of her disability” which was her inability to work from the office regularly, to attend home and community visits and court hearings. That is clearly the case. The Respondent did not want the Claimant, who had these limitations, to continue in her current role. They wanted someone who could carry out all the requirements of the role, and so sought to withdraw the reasonable adjustments, and require her to find another role or face a process which could result in her dismissal.

[106]There is no evidence that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In fact, the Claimant was able to retain the reasonable adjustments that she needed once she submitted a grievance appeal. Allegation 5

[107]The fifth allegation of unfavourable treatment is, “On 30 January 2024 the Respondent conducted the grievance meeting in the Claimant’s absence and/or concluded the grievance process without providing the Claimant with a chance to discuss her grievance at a grievance meeting”.

[108]I find based on the evidence I was presented with that the meeting did take place without the Claimant attending, or the Respondent concluded the grievance process without providing the Claimant with a chance to discuss her grievance at a grievance meeting, and I find that this plainly amounts to “unfavourable treatment”. The grievance meeting when ahead despite the Claimant being absent from work due to sickness absence, which was something arising in consequence of her disability. The letter regarding her grievance outcome was written as if she had attended the meeting and had been represented. This suggests the letter was written in advance of the meeting.

[109]There is no evidence that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is very hard to see why the meeting, which was intended to discuss the Claimant’s grievance, could not be postponed to another day when the Claimant could attend.

[110]Overall, the Claimant’s claim, under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, is well-founded and is upheld in respect of all 5 allegations of unfavourable treatment. Harassment related to disability

[111]The Claimant has made 9 allegations of harassment related to disability which I have considered in turn. In respect of each, I have considered if the events occurred, if they amounted to unwanted conduct, if that conduct was related to disability and if so, if it had the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. While I have considered each of the allegations in turn, I have taken into account the totality of the allegations made, and the general course of conduct that the Claimant alleges occurred. Allegations 1 and 2

[112]I have considered the first and second allegations together. They are: 1) In July 2023 Ms Brahilika’s suggestion in the OH referral that conducting the assessment face to face would be beneficial. This is despite the fact that the Claimant suffers from reduced mobility and that she had attended her previous OH assessment remotely. 2) In July 2023 Ms Brahilika asking in the OH referral that the OH Assessor confirms whether the Claimant is registered disabled and what support she received as a result.

[113]In respect of both allegations, I find that factually they occurred. They refer to what was set out in the referral form. I also found that these events amounted to “unwanted conduct”, and they plainly related to the Claimant’s disabilities.

[114]Ms Brahilika suggested in the referral form that the Claimant had not attended the office in 3 years and that was factually inaccurate. The OH Advisor noted in response to the request that no reason had been given by Ms Brahilika for why the assessment needed to be face to face. When the Claimant saw the referral, she reasonably believed that Ms Brahilika was suspicious of the Claimant, and that a face to face assessment was requested so the OH Advisor could assess if they Claimant was reporting the effect of her conditions accurately. The fact that no other reason was given by Ms Brahilika for this request indicates that the Claimant was right that Ms Brahilika’s suspicion was the reason this was requested. There does not appear to have been any basis for Ms Brahilika’s suspicion.

[115]I accept that there are many circumstances where an employer suggesting a face to face assessment with Occupational Health would be perfectly normal and would not violate the dignity of a disabled employee. However, I have borne in mind the events that followed this, and the Respondent’s increasing indication that they were unwilling to offer the Claimant the reasonable adjustments which had been in place for some time, and some of which had even been agreed since 2013. Ultimately I have accepted that the Claimant reasonably felt that her employer, whom she had been with for many years, was looking for a justification to remove her reasonable adjustments, and then move her to a different role or dismiss her.

[116]Similarly, I find that the request that the Occupational Health advisor find out if the Claimant was “registered” disabled and what support she received as a result was also driven by suspicion. If Ms Brahilika had a perfectly legitimate reason for needing this information she could simply have asked the Claimant. Employers should be mindful that it is often very difficult for disabled employees to request adjustments, and the feeling of being placed under suspicion for requesting adjustments, can easily create a hostile workplace for them. It is important that referrals to Occupational Health are drafted diplomatically and tactfully so that disabled employees are not made to feel unwanted in the workplace.

[117]In respect of Allegations 1 and 2, I find the Respondent’s actions had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating a hostile environment for her. I find it was reasonable for the Claimant to feel her dignity was violated by the manner in which the referral was drafted because it made her feel she was not being believed about the effect that her conditions had upon her. Allegations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 - Requests for further OH advice

[118]I considered allegations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 together because they all relate to the Respondent’s requests that the Claimant be re-assessed by Occupational Health or that further clarification be sought from Occupational Health, along with the insistence that the Claimant’s role required that she undertake certain visits. The allegations are as follows: 3) On 14 August 2023 Ms Wasiq suggested that the Claimant be reassessed by the OH assessor. This is despite the OH assessment on 27 July 2023 addressed the points Ms Wasiq wanted to seek clarity on. 4) On 31 August 2023 Ms Wasiq insisted with the Claimant during a back to work catch up meeting that the Claimant be re-referred for another OH assessment to understand, from a health perspective, why she could not work from the office 3 days per week and why she could not undertake home and community visits. 5) On 4 September 2023, the email from Ms Wasiq to the Claimant setting out the areas she wanted the OH Assessor to clarify. Ms Wasiq asked the Claimant to let her know whether the Claimant consented to a new OH assessment to review the July OH assessment. 6) On 11 September 2023, Ms Wasiq wrote that she needed the updated OH information as part of her decision making process into the Claimant’s 7) On 12 September 2023 Ms Wasiq reiterating the requirement for the Claimant to work from the office and to accompany Social Workers to visits, and insisting that the Claimant give her consent to a OH reassessment as a follow up to the July OH assessment.

[119]I accepted the Claimant’s evidence that the events set out above occurred and I was provided with the relevant documents. I concluded that the Respondent’s repeated requests that the Claimant attend a further Occupational Health assessment, having only just attended one, amounted to unwanted conduct. It also clearly related to the Claimant’s disabilities.

[120]An Occupational Health report had been produced. It is evident that the report contained advice that the Respondent was unhappy with. As shown by the letter sent to the Claimant on 14 September 2023, the Respondent wished to remove her reasonable adjustments. The repeated attempts to get the Claimant to agree to a re-assessment plainly put her under considerable pressure.

[121]In addition, there are numerous matters which the Respondent said they wanted the Occupational Health Advisor to give further advice on, which the Respondent could have simply asked the Claimant to clarify. For example, how long her appointments to change her bandages would take.

[122]I accept that there are many circumstances in which an employer can legitimately ask for a further Occupational Health report or more medical evidence on a specific point. However, in this case, the Respondent repeatedly attempted to pressurise the Claimant into that course of action even after she had said she did not consent to what they were proposing, and in this case, it is apparent the reason they wanted the Claimant to return to Occupational Health is because they wanted different advice from the advice they had already received.

[123]These allegations also relate to the manner in which the Claimant was told that she was now going to be required to undertake visits, some of which she had not undertaken since 2013 and which she had been assured in 2017 she would not need to undertake when she accepted the role she was offered. The Respondent may have wished to re-expand the Claimant’s role to include a requirement that she undertake visits, but they approached this in a regrettable manner. There seems to have been little consideration of whether that was a realistic request to make of the Claimant given the difficulties with her mobility. There seemed to be an agenda to have the Claimant moved to a different role instead or dismissed. These issues were raised with the Claimant in an insensitive manner.

[124]I therefore concluded that in respect of allegations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the Respondent’s conduct had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating a hostile and intimidating environment for her. I find it was reasonable for the conduct to have this effect on the Claimant, particularly given the repetitive nature of the requests. Allegations 8 and 9

[125]I have considered allegations 8 and 9 together as they both relate to the letter of 14 September 2023. The allegations are as follows: 8) On 14 September 2023, Ms Wasiq claimed in her letter that receiving support to record supervisions onto children’s records and the assistance provided by the team manager amounted to reasonable adjustments and claimed that they were being revoked. 9) On 14 September 2023, Ms Wasiq wrote to the Claimant that she should seek alternative employment and that a capability procedure would be triggered should she be unable to secure an alternative role.

[126]I concluded that these events did take place, as I was provided with the letter of 14 September 2023. I concluded that in respect of both allegations these are acts of “unwanted conduct”.

[127]The first relates to an assumption that measures that had been put in place to assist the Claimant, were in place because of her disabilities, when in fact they had not. They had been put in place to assist the Claimant because of her increased workload, and this could easily have been clarified with the Claimant if the meeting on 14 September 2023 had not taken place in the Claimant’s absence.

[128]The second relates to relaying to the Claimant, in writing, that because of the effects of her disability she would have to find another job, and that she may face no longer being employed if she did not secure an alternative role. To say that this was dealt with poorly is an understatement. If disabled people risk losing their employment because of their disabilities, or the consequences of their disabilities, that is a message which must be relayed with considerable care. That was lacking in this case. A letter was sent following a meeting, which the Claimant was not able to attend, and which she had not been informed about in advance.

[129]I find that the Respondent’s conduct had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating a hostile environment for her.

[130]In conclusion, I have upheld all 9 of the Claimant’s allegations of harassment related to disability. Time limits

[131]The Claimant contacted Acas for Early Conciliation (EC) purposes on 6 December 2023 and the EC certificate was issued on 17 January 2024. The Claim Form was submitted on 15 February 2024. As a result, anything that occurred after 7 September 2023 is within the primary limitation period.

[132]All of the Claimant’s allegations of unfavourable treatment, under her claim for discrimination arising from disability, occurred after 7 September 2023, and therefore all fall within the primary limitation period.

[133]The first 5 of the Claimant’s allegations of harassment related to disability occurred prior to 7 September 2023. The remaining 4 allegations occurred after that date. However, I have concluded that the Respondent’s actions amount to “conduct extending over a period” and therefore under section 123(3) of the Equality Act 2010 is to be treated as done at the end of the period.

[134]I have found that the Respondent’s actions amount to conduct extending over a period because in essence this was a chain of events which started in July 2023 with the referral to Occupational Health and culminated in September 2023 with the Claimant being informed that the reasonable adjustments would be withdrawn in October 2023, and she would need to find another role or face a capability process. The same people were involved. The various meetings, discussions, and letters sent to her were all about the same topic. The conduct was of such a similar nature that allegations 3-7 were all able to be considered together.

[135]For these reasons, I find that the Claimant’s allegations of harassment amount to conduct extending over a period, the last 4 of which were in time, and as such I find that the Claimant’s claim of harassment was brought within time. Approved by: