Ms N Raif v Waterstones Booksellers Ltd: 6009955/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6009955/2024

Between

Ms N RaifClaimant

Waterstones Booksellers LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Davidson

In person for claimant

Mr P Wilson (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 19 November 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]Harassment The complaint of harassment related to disability is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[3]Unfair Dismissal The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The issues were set out by EJ Boyle at a case management hearing on 20 January 2025 as follows:

[1]Unfair (constructive) dismissal1.1 Was the claimant dismissed?1.1.1 Did the respondent do the following things:1.1.1.1 Fail to provide support which could have improved her performance;

1.1.1.2 Fail to respond to requests for reasonable adjustments;

1.1.1.3 Subject the claimant to harassment related to disability in the workplace;

1.1.1.4 Fail to provide a safe working environment for the claimant?

1.1.2 Did that breach the implied term of trust and confidence? The Tribunal will need to decide:1.1.2.1 whether the respondent behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent; and

1.1.2.2 whether it had reasonable and proper cause for doing so.

1.1.3 Did the claimant resign in response to the breach? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the breach of contract was a reason for the claimant’s resignation.

1.1.4 Did the claimant affirm the contract before resigning? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the claimant’s words or actions showed that they chose to keep the contract alive even after the breach.

1.2 If the claimant was dismissed, what was the reason for the breach of contract?

1.3 Was it a potentially fair reason?

1.4 Did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in all the circumstances in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?

[2]Reasonable Adjustments (Equality Act 2010 sections 20 & 21)2.1 Did the respondent know or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant had the disability? From what date?

2.2 A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the respondent have the following PCPs:2.2.1 a requirement to attend the head office at certain times during the working day (PCP1);

2.2.2 a requirement to increase days working in the office as opposed to home working (PCP2)?

2.3 Did the PCPs put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without the claimant’s disability, in that pain and fatigue and over stimulation affected her ability to work by not being able to concentrate and requiring her to take breaks?

2.4 Did the respondent know or could it reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was likely to be placed at the disadvantage?

2.5 What steps could have been taken to avoid the disadvantage? The claimant suggests:2.5.1 Flexibility on occasions to travel to work outside of rush hour which was first requested around March 2024 to her manager Lauren Bagnall and Hazel Walker and on-going (PCP1);

2.5.2 Being able to have a quiet space when in the office, first requested around March 2024 to her manager Lauren Bagnall and Hazel Walker and on-going (PCP1);

2.5.3 A guarantee of working from home 3 days a week (PCP2);

2.5.4 Ergonomic mouse – not requested by the claimant at the time (PCP not identified);

2.5.5 Specialist programmes for processing information – not requested by the claimant at the time (PCP not identified).

2.6 Was it reasonable for the respondent to have to take those steps and when?

2.7 Did the respondent fail to take those steps?

[3]Harassment related to disability (Equality Act 2010 section 26)3.1 Did the respondent do the following things:3.1.1 On 20 March 2024 at her 3-month review, Lauren Bagnall and Hazel Waker reacted in a hostile way to a request for reasonable adjustments by starting a meeting saying ‘we completely disagree with you’;

3.1.2 The continued failure by the respondent to confirm in writing or act upon reasonable adjustments requests;

3.1.3 Work being withheld from the claimant by Lauren Bagnall or not being given the full context of the work. The claimant gave an example of Hazel Walker requesting the claimant to update client information but not giving her sufficient information so that she was not able to complete the task on 16 May 2024;

3.1.4 No allowances given for mistakes and one-off mistakes kept being referred to ;

3.1.5 The meeting of 20 May 2024 with Lauren Bagnall and being told she was only completing 50% and left with this information rather than a plan to support her;

3.1.6 The meeting on 22 May 2024 with Gary Clark where was aggressively tapping the table and saying ‘when will you be doing 100%’?

3.2 If so, was that unwanted conduct?

3.3 Did it relate to disability?

3.4 Did the conduct have the purpose of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant?

3.5 If not, did it have that effect? 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. Evidence 2. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant on her own behalf and from Lauren Bagnall (Buying Manager and the claimant’s line manager), Gary Clark (Group Vice President for Related Products, formerly Head of Related Products), Hazel Walker (Buying Manager, formerly Senior Buyer), Maxine Cowley (Head of HR Business Partnering), Deepak Patel (Financial Controller) and Candace Greatbanks (Head of Supply Chain Services) on behalf of the respondent. 3. The claimant also submitted a witness statement from Kim Raif (her mother). The respondent did not cross examine Mrs Raif.

[4]The tribunal had a bundle of documents running to 538 pages. Facts

[5]The tribunal found the following facts on the balance of probabilities.

[6]The respondent is a national book retailer that sells books together with stationery, games and gifts (Related Products or RP) online and across 280 bookshops.

[7]The claimant started working as a bookseller at the respondent’s Woking branch in 2017, working 3 days per week. She disclosed to the respondent in 2021 that she had fibromyalgia and autism.

[8]In late 2023, she responded to an internal advertisement for a vacancy at head office in the RP team for a full-time role. The advert did not specify that it was a secondment but this was mentioned at the initial interview and it is the respondent’s normal practice to offer head office roles initially on secondment. Most of these roles are subsequently converted to permanent positions.

[9]The claimant applied for the role on 4 October 2024 and was interviewed via Teams on 17 October 2024 by Hazel Walker and Lauren Bagnall. She was called for a further in-person interview to take place on 25 October 2024 with Lauren Bagnall and Gary Clark. At that interview, she was told that it was a full-time secondment role, working Monday and Wednesday in the office and 3 days remotely. She was told that the number of working days in the office might be reviewed in the future.

[10]On 26 October 2024, Lauren Bagnall emailed the claimant and offered her the position. The following day, 27 October 2024, the claimant emailed to discuss her disabilities before accepting the offer. There was a phone call between the claimant and Lauren Bagnall during which the claimant disclosed that she has autism and fibromyalgia. There was a brief discussion about working four half days but this did not fit in with the team’s working pattern. The claimant said she would need flexibility around travel to work. Lauren Bagnall confirmed that the team operated a flexible approach in any event. They agreed to have a follow-up call with Gary Clark on 1 November 2024 via Teams.

[11]During this call, they discussed the physical aspects of the role, which the claimant was comfortable with. She said that she was unable to identify what specific adjustments she may need for the role until she had been doing it for a while. Lauren Bagnall agreed that after the claimant had started the role, they could discuss adjustments at any time if there were any she wanted to request.

[12]On 2 November 2024, the claimant accepted the role. She said she was ‘committed to finding effective solutions for any challenges that may arise and happy to collaborate with occupational health to ensure a smooth transition into the role’. The offer of secondment was confirmed in writing on 15 November 2024, confirming the increase to full-time hours and specifying her salary.

[13]The claimant started the role on 4 December 2025. December is the peak busy period for the respondent.

[14]The claimant was shadowing the outgoing Administrative Assistant, Isabelle Crabtree for the first few weeks. After Isabelle Crabtree left, the claimant was told that Lauren Clarke would be her point of reference (buddy) for any queries. During January and February 2024, Lauren Clarke had some sickness absence.

[15]The claimant had regular 1:1s with her manager, Lauren Bagnall. The first of these was on 11 January 2024. Lauren Bagnall asked how things were going and the claimant did not flag up any problems. The claimant asked for instructions to be provided to her in writing and Lauren Bagnall asked the team to do this for her. The claimant made no further mention of this request at the time.

[16]Lauren Bagnall had identified a few minor issues with the claimant’s performance such as repeated mistakes or tasks not being completed as expected but she did not consider that these were serious enough to warrant any formal performance management.

[17]The claimant complains that she was not told of any performance concerns in the first four weeks in the role. We find that any mistakes made by the claimant in that period were not regarded by the respondent as performance concerns, just as aspects of the role on which she needed some more support as a new starter. This is particularly so due to the timing of her start date, during the busiest period of the year, when other staff have less time to spend showing her how tasks are completed. We find that the respondent did not form any negative assessment of the claimant’s performance over this period, as she later suggests.

[18]The claimant was due to have a 3-month review in February/March 2024. Ahead of this, Lauren Bagnall asked her to fill in a standard form known as a ‘Check In’ in which the employee is asked to identify what has gone well and what has not gone well with suggestions how to stop that happening again. In the section ‘What didn’t go well’, the claimant commented No formal adjustments being made despite being discussed at interview and upon hiring. I would like some formal adjustments put in place, such as more flexibility around start and finish times on days when I am in the office if transport issues have caused me increased anxiety. I would like this to be a formal, written action so that I have the option of starting later or finishing early on such days due to health Issues without feeling like I need to make a special request each time. This has left me uncomfortable approaching the topic, and I don't feel able to ask for extra time/adjustments on any tasks within the team as this has not been addressed by management. Due to the nature of my Autism, I need this approached formally, fully, and discussed openly with me in clear and certain terms so that I can understand the boundaries of any adjustments made. At the moment it feels like I am expected to "get on" with my job and hope that my needs just disappear. My autoimmune disease can flare up at short notice and cause extreme fatigue, swelling, and pain. I need some way of flagging this to my manager in order to convey that I might need to have some adjustments in place without feeling like this is coming as new information if this does happen.

[19]They had the meeting on 20 March 2024. Lauren Bagnall told us that she perceived the claimant’s comments as critical of her and anticipated that she would need a notetaker so that she could deal with the issues which the claimant had raised. The original appointment for the meeting was cancelled and then rearranged for later that day.

[20]The claimant was not told in advance that Hazel Walker would attend but she was told just before the meeting started and indicated that she accepted her attendance. She told us that she was so thrown by Hazel Walker’s presence that she would have accepted anything put to her, just to bring an end to the meeting.

[21]During the meeting, Lauren Bagnall explained that she was surprised by the feedback as she thought she had been flexible when the claimant had asked to work from home or come in late. The claimant clarified that she wanted these measures to be recorded as reasonable adjustments in writing so that if there was a change of manager, she could be assured that she would still have that flexibility.

[22]They went on to look at the claimant’s tasks to see if she needed any help or support. They identified some areas for improvement and listed these as ‘Performance Next Steps’. An Objectives document was drawn up on 20 March 2024 after the meeting.

[23]Following this meeting, on 22 March 2024 Lauren Bagnall sent the claimant the reasonable adjustments form for her to complete. They met on 25 March 2024 and the claimant asked for more time to complete this, which Lauren Bagnall agreed.

[24]The Reasonable Adjustments Document was completed by the claimant by 27 March 2024. She commented that she enjoyed her job and did not feel that the team or managers had been unsupportive. She acknowledged that the is able to raise concerns but said that she wanted her reasonable adjustments recorded in writing as she is afraid and embarrassed to talk about her disabilities, which makes her anxious. She also wanted them recorded in writing as a ‘safety net’ in case her manager changes. She identified the following adjustments for autism and fibromyalgia that would be effective for her (some of which she acknowledged were in place): 24.1. To have the option to stagger or delay coming into the office, or leaving early to avoid rush hour on occasions 24.2. To have the option to work from home if the number of days of working in the office were to increase 24.3. To be able to use meeting rooms as a quiet space if she is overstimulated 24.4. Written communications to help process information 24.5. Colour coding to help deal with large amounts of data 24.6. Allowing time for processing large amounts of information 24.7. Reducing the amount of information or new tasks if she feels she has reached capacity 24.8. Modified performance targets if they are impacted by her conditions.

[25]At a meeting on 27 March 2025, the claimant asked for a referral to occupational health (OH). Lauren Bagnall contacted her after the meeting for consent for OH to contact her to set up an appointment.

[26]There was a telephone assessment by OH on 8 April 2024. The OH report was received by the respondent on 23 April 2024. OH recommended that the claimant should be offered a Stress Risk Assessment and went on to list helpful tips (mostly generic) for people with autism in the workplace. OH also recommended assessing the claimant’s current workload to work with the claimant to reduce this to manageable levels.

[27]Following the OH Recommendation, on 10 May 2024, the claimant was asked by Lauren Bagnall to complete the Stress Risk Assessment. The claimant returned the form to Lauren Bagnall on 13 May 2024 and it was forwarded to HR on 14 May 2024. Reading the document as a whole, the claimant provides positive answers to the questions regarding the support she was getting, the relationships within the team and her treatment by managers and colleagues.

[28]In the period from the start of the claimant’s employment to the six-month review, the claimant had the following flexibility given to her: 5 December 2023 working from home due to train works 3 January 2024 working from home due to train cancellations 8 January 2024 working from home due to anticipated train strike 29 January 2024 running late due to trains 30 January 2024 working from home to due train strike stops work early due to migraine 31 January 2024 unwell and can’t come in due to train motion stops work early 14 February 2024 sickness absence 23 February 2024 sickness absence (tummy bug) 26 February 2024 working from home as not well (tummy bug) 28 February 2024 running late due to trains 4 March 2024 working from home due to train cancellations 8 April 2024 working from home due to strikes 11 April 2024 sickness absence (migraine) 8 May 2024 working from home due to train cancellations 15 May 2024 working from home due to Covid jab reaction

[29]On 20 May 2024, the claimant had a meeting with Lauren Bagnall which she thought was a catch-up and which Lauren Bagnall described as the six-month review. They discussed the claimant’s performance against her targets. Lauren Bagnall gave some positive feedback about improvements but commented that the claimant was only doing 50% of the tasks of her role. The claimant understood this to be critical of her performance and felt demoralised and humiliated. She also felt that her reasonable adjustments requests were being delayed or ignored. She was distressed by the meeting and had an ‘autistic meltdown’.

[30]Although the RP team generally worked remotely on Tuesdays, they were asked to attend another office for a business update meeting on 21 May 2024. Lauren Bagnall told her team that they were expected to attend unless there were good reasons for not doing so. Some of the team attended remotely but the others, including the claimant, did attend in person. Lauren Bagnall had chased the claimant, who had not responded to the original email invite and the claimant confirmed she would attend.

[31]On 22 May 2024, the claimant emailed Lauren Bignall, coping in Gary Clark, as a follow-up to the 20 May 2024 meeting. She expressed her distress at the feedback about her performance from Lauren Bagnall and suggested working together to meet an acceptable standard, taking into account that autism affects her processing times. She also attributed the lack of progress to not having a formal induction and insufficient training leaving her to figure out the job through trial and error. She identified the areas she was confident in, the areas she was less familiar with and the things she had not had training on.

[32]There was a meeting on 22 May 2024 attended by the claimant, Lauren Bagnall and Gary Clark. The claimant alleges that Gary Clark became aggressive; Lauren Bagnall and Gary Clark state that it was the claimant who became agitated. She started crying and said that she didn’t think she would be there this time next year. Gary Clark replied that she was half-way through her secondment. They told the claimant that she could leave early. She said that that the meeting upset he so much that she felt suicidal on her way home and required support from her family to make it home safely.

[33]On 23 May 2024, Gary Clark responded, acknowledging the claimant’s distress at the feedback and confirming that it was not the intention to cause distress but to ensure she was receiving the right support to achieve her performance goals. He outlined the support she had received and that was available to her and set out next steps, which was a meeting to find out what level the claimant was at and what support or additional training was required.

[34]The meeting was held later that day between Lauren Bagnall and the claimant to go through each task.

[35]A meeting was arranged with Maxine Cowley for 29 May 2024 to discuss reasonable adjustments. Prior to the meeting, the claimant emailed Maxine Cowley to say that she felt the office was a ‘hostile and unwelcome place’ and she would prefer to meet via Teams, which Maxine Cowley agreed and for Gary Clark not to attend. Maxine Cowley expressed concern about the claimant’s comments and suggested that the planned meeting be used to talk about her concerns, rather than the reasonable adjustments, as originally planned. The claimant agreed. Maxine Cowley also noted that she thought Lauren Bagnall or Gary Clark would need to be included in the reasonable adjustments conversation.

[36]At the meeting, the claimant said that she felt she had been discriminated against for having a disability, explaining why she felt that way. Maxine Cowley asked for more details and reassured the claimant that, from what she had seen, there was an appetite to give her the support she needed to perform well in the role. They had a long conversation during which the claimant was able to articulate how she felt. She said she felt unsupported and that the attitude of Lauren Bagnall and Gary Clark changed towards her after she disclosed her disabilities. In the middle of the conversation, she took a call from her GP. Maxine Cowley informed the claimant of the possibilities of an informal grievance or a formal grievance. The claimant said that she wanted to raise a formal grievance. Maxine Cowley told her the next steps but pointed out that it could be a stressful process and asking her if she was well enough to work at that time. The claimant said that she had just been advised by her GP to take time off and Maxine Cowley said she could self-certify and take sick leave from then. Maxine Cowley asked if she had support at home and reminded her about the respondent’s Employee Assistance provider which was available to her 24/7 for any confidential support she may need.

[37]On 5 June 2024, the claimant raised a formal grievance, complaining about direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive dismissal (even though she had not yet resigned). Maxine Cowley replied, acknowledging the grievance, asking what outcome she wanted, querying the reference to constructive dismissal and reminding her that the reasonable adjustments meeting still needed to take place on her return to work.

[38]On 11 June 2024, Maxine Cowley chased the claimant to see if she wanted to pursue the grievance while off sick. The claimant replied saying she was in the middle of preparing a grievance letter. This was sent to HR by the claimant on 14 June 2024. She set out her grievances, including her feeling that she was being put under pressure to resign. She concluded by stating that her desired outcome is to have reasonable adjustments in place and for a working environment which would allow her to thrive and fulfil her role.

[39]The grievance meeting was held on 21 June and 24 June 2024, conducted by Deepak Patel, with Claire Martin of HR taking notes. The claimant was accompanied by her mother, Kim Raif. Deepak Patel investigated the issue raised by the claimant and, in a detailed outcome letter, he concluded that he did not uphold the grievance.

[40]The Overall Outcome concluded that there had been no discrimination, rather that the claimant had been supported with flexibility on start times and support and direction in the weekly 1:1s. The reasonable adjustments were not dismissed but put in place pending a final conversation to document these. He concluded that the role was always a secondment and the claimant’s disclosure of disabilities made no difference to this. He also concluded that there was no evidence of dismissive or hostile responses by the managers towards the claimant.

[41]Deepak Patel acknowledged that the grievance process and issues raised could result in difficulties with her managers and he suggested the option of mediation. He also confirmed that she could bring the secondment to an end and return to her bookseller role or return to her RP role. He told her that there were no other roles elsewhere within the Head Office.

[42]The claimant appealed on 21 July 2024 as she was not satisfied with the grievance outcome. The appeal manager was Candace Greatbanks, who arranged an appeal hearing for 30 July 2024. Tanpreet Bhach of HR was the notetaker and the claimant was accompanied by her mother. Candace Greatbanks carried out the further investigations she considered necessary. By letter dated 13 August 2024, Candace Greatbanks gave the claimant the appeal outcome in detail, concluding that she had decided not to uphold the appeal. She offered some proposals to come to a resolution, including rearranging the reasonable adjustments meeting, mediation, return to her role, return to the booksellers, looking for another role within the Head Office.

[43]On 15 August 2024, the claimant submitted her resignation with immediate effect due to ‘breach of contract and failure to provide reasonable adjustments’, giving details of the alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments and harassment. Relevant law Constructive unfair dismissal

Relevant law

[44]An employee is regarded as dismissed where the employee terminates the contract of employment in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct.

[45]There must be a breach of contract by the employer which is sufficiently serious to justify the employee leaving, or it must be the last in a series of incidents which justify his leaving (last straw doctrine). The employee must leave in response to the breach and not for some other unconnected reason and the employee must not delay too long otherwise he may be deemed to have waived the breach and affirmed the contract.

[46]The implied terms of mutual trust and confidence was established by the House of Lords in Malik v BCCI

[1998] AC 20

, which provided that the employer shall not ‘without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee”. This is an objective test (London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju

[2005] IRLR 35

). Failure to make reasonable adjustments

[47]Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 set out the general scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. There is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of the employer 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 is reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. Harassment related to disability

[48]Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person harasses another if they engage in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of either violating the other person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating environment for them.

[49]In determining whether the conduct has that effect, the tribunal must consider the perception of the claimant, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. There is therefore a subjective element and an objective element Determination of the

Issues

[50]We find that the respondent was aware of the disabilities of fibromyalgia and autism from October 2023. Failure to make reasonable adjustments

[51]We find that there was a requirement to attend the office two days a week during the claimant’s employment at head office (PCP1). We find that the office hours were 9am to 5.30pm although there was flexibility regarding start and finish times if employees had issues in being at the office for those hours. This included delays for train problems, childcare and health-related issues. Any employee taking advantage of the flexibility arrangements was expected to notify their manager of the situation.

[52]We find that the PCP1 does put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in that she can experience pain and flare ups if she travels in peak hours. Separately, we understand that the working environment in the office can be overstimulating for the claimant.

[53]We accept that the respondent was aware of these disadvantages.

[54]We find that flexibility on occasions to travel to work outside of rush hour was an appropriate adjustment which was in place from the outset of the claimant’s employment. We find that the respondent took this step by operating a flexible attitude to start and finish times for all staff. We find that the claimant is misguided to conclude that the fact that this flexibility is offered to everyone for any reason means that it is not a reasonable adjustment for her disability. As the policy was in place, she was able to benefit from it for disability (and other) reasons, as were her colleagues for their reasons. The fact that other employees were also permitted flexibility for other reasons does not mean that she suffered any disadvantage because of her disability. From the evidence before us, the majority of requests from the claimant were due to train issues. On times she called in sick when unwell (not necessarily for disability related illness) which would not require a reasonable adjustment. On other times, she requested to be able to work from home or finish early due to being unwell. These requests were always granted.

[55]We find that being able to have a quiet space is a reasonable adjustment. The respondent agreed to provide this if the claimant requested at any time and a room was available. The claimant interpreted the caveat that the room would have to be available as the respondent failing to agree to the adjustment. We do not agree. We find that the suggestion by the claimant that a room should always be available is not a reasonable adjustment. The claimant, in the event, never requested this. There is therefore no time when she was disadvantaged by not having a quiet room available.

[56]We do not find that the respondent had PCP2 during the claimant’s employment. The days in the office were two per week. Although it was flagged that this might change in future, no such change took place during the claimant’s employment, nor were there any announcements that such a change was being actively considered.

[57]As a general comment regarding PCPs, it became apparent during the hearing that the claimant’s issue with the flexibility of attendance times was that she wanted this in writing. She was unable to say what the written document would have included which had not been confirmed to the claimant already. We gave consideration to whether the preference for written confirmation was, itself, disability related and concluded from the evidence before us that she wanted a ‘safety net’ due to previous experiences in the bookshop when she had a change of manager who was not aware of the arrangements she had made with a previous manager. This explanation suggested that the request was not an adjustment needed due to the claimant’s disability but due to an insecurity arising from previous experience.

[58]If the claimant did require the reasonable adjustment to be recorded in writing due to her disability, we find that the respondent did not object to doing so. The process which would have resulted in the document requested by the claimant was in hand and was only not completed due to other events overtaking this process.

[59]As regards reasonable adjustments in respect of an ergonomic mouse and specialist programmes for processing information, it is not clear what PCP these relate to or what disadvantage she alleges follows from her disability. In any event, she did not make the claimant aware that these were adjustments she required. They are not included in her Reasonable Adjustments Document.

[60]We disagree with the claimant that the employer has a duty to anticipate what reasonable adjustments might be appropriate and to put these in place. It is for an employee to indicate what disadvantage their disability causes and to suggest adjustments and discuss these with the employer. It is only the employee who knows fully what impact the disability has on their ability to carry out the role and it would be inappropriate for the employer, rather than the employee, to be the party deciding what the disadvantage suffered by the employee is and what should be done about it. Once the employee identifies the disadvantage and suggests an adjustment, the employer must consider this and, if the adjustment is reasonable, put it in place. Harassment

[61]On 20 March 2024 at her 3-month review, Lauren Bagnall and Hazel Walker said that they did not accept that the claimant’s version of events as set out in the Check In document was a fair assessment of the situation. In particular, the claimant had stated that no formal adjustments had been made despite being discussed at interview and upon hiring. The respondent did not agree that this was an accurate reflection and, in our view, they are entitled to maintain that position. We do not find that this was said in a hostile way. We acknowledge that the claimant was thrown by the presence of two managers at a meeting she was expecting to be just with Lauren Bagnall and that this may have contributed to her interpretation of the comment as being hostile.

[62]The claimant first raised that she had disabilities at the outset and said that she may need reasonable adjustments. The adjustments she identified regarding travel were met by the respondent’s flexible approach to the team. She said that she was unable to identify any other adjustments until she had been in the role. The respondent made it clear that she could approach them at any time to discuss adjustments. At the regular 1:1 meetings between the claimant and Lauren Bagnall, the claimant confirmed that there were no particular issues she wanted to raise, although she did ask for work instructions to be put in writing. We are unaware whether she made this request because of her autism or because she was new to the role and the workplace was busy. Lauren Bagnall arranged for the claimant’s colleagues to put instructions in writing. The claimant said that this did not always happen but she has made no complaint to the tribunal about any such failing.

[63]After the Check In document was completed, the respondent became aware for the first time that the claimant was asking for formal agreement of reasonable adjustments to be recorded in a written record of the agreed adjustments. The claimant requested the right to take time off or be late without having to ask, as an entitlement. We find that the policy operated by the respondent was flexible and without judgment and without any management approval being required. We therefore do not find that a failure to offer this was an act of harassment.

[64]The claimant’s case as presented during the hearing was that she had expected a process to kick off at the start of her employment once she disclosed that she had disabilities, even though she had not identified any reasonable adjustments that she needed for the role. We find that the respondent discharged its obligations at this stage in the process by raising the subject and telling the claimant that she could revisit reasonable adjustments at any time.

[65]After the claimant crystallised her position on reasonable adjustments on 20 March 2024, we find that the respondent did put in place the process that the claimant had expected to start earlier. In particular, she was asked to complete a reasonable adjustments form, she had an OH assessment, she completed a Stress Risk Assessment and a meeting was arranged to discuss reasonable adjustments. In the event, circumstances overtook and the meeting did not take place. The original meeting was converted to discuss the claimant’s concerns about the working environment. The respondent clearly had the intention of rearranging the meeting but the claimant went off sick on 29 May 2024 and never returned to work.

[66]We heard no evidence to support the allegation that the respondent withheld work from the claimant as set out in 3.1.3 of the List of Issues.

[67]We find that the claimant understands any feedback of her performance which was not wholly positive as being wholly negative. During various conversations with the claimant, her managers identified learning needs and tasks that needed to be worked on in the context of supporting her to achieve the levels required as would be expected with any new starter. This is even more so as the respondent was aware she had started at a busy time and was transitioning from a very different role and the respondent was aware that the claimant would need support. The claimant accepted that she made mistakes but we do not agree with her that no allowances were made for these. No formal performance management steps were taken against her and it is the role of a manager to identify performance issues in order to identify the support required and to make arrangements to provide it. We find that this is what the respondent did with the claimant. In any event, we do not find that the issues raised during feedback were related to the claimant’s disabilities.

[68]As regards the comment about 50%, we find that this figure is a comment about the quantity of the role that the claimant was performing, not an assessment of the quality of her work. There are no notes of the meeting and Lauren Bagnall disagrees that there was no plan to support her. We note that the claimant was distressed during this meeting and it may have been that it was not possible to go on to discuss how to support her in those circumstances. However, we note from the subsequent exchange of emails that there were steps being considered as a plan to support her.

[69]We find that there was a meeting on 22 May 2024 with Gary Clark. There is a direct conflict of evidence between the claimant and Gary Clark and Lauren Bagnall about what happened at that meeting. No notes were taken of the meeting. We do not find that Gary Clark spoke aggressively to the claimant although we accept that he wanted her to achieve more tasks in her role. The purpose of the meeting was to see how to assist the claimant to increase the number of tasks she could do and Gary Clark would have wanted her to improve the level of her workload. Gary Clark as the manager of the team has a duty to manage the team so that they are encouraged to perform at as high a capacity as they can, although this must not be done in an aggressive or unreasonable manner. We do not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Gary Clark crossed that line.

[70]We have not found any unwanted conduct relating to the claimant’s disability and no disability related harassment. Constructive dismissal

[71]We do not find that the respondent failed to provide support which could have improved her performance. The claimant put in place a shadowing arrangement, followed by a buddy and regular 1:1 meetings. Instructions were put in writing at her request. the claimant sat in close proximity to Lauren Bagnall and Hazel Walker and there is nothing to suggest they would not have helped her if she had asked. We also note that the respondent took no disciplinary action based on any performance concerns.

[72]For the reasons set out above in paragraphs 51-60, we find that the respondent did not fail to respond to the request for reasonable adjustments.

[73]For the reasons set out above in paragraphs 61-70, we find that the respondent did not subject the claimant to harassment related to disability in the workplace.

[74]The respondent did their best to provide the claimant with what she asked for. She was allowed to use ear loops and sunglasses when she wanted. They allowed her flexibility regarding start times and office attendance. We acknowledge that she expressed that she felt ‘unsafe’ in meetings where her performance was being discussed. We accept that she felt overwhelmed and emotional in these meetings. As acknowledged by the respondent, these meetings can be difficult but they do need to take place. We find that the respondent conducted these meetings in an appropriate manner. We accept that these were difficult meetings but do not find that they amounted to an unsafe environment. When it became apparent that the claimant found such situations difficult, the respondent allowed her mother to attend the grievance hearing and grievance appeal hearing, even though they were not obliged to.

[75]We do not find that the respondent behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent.

Conclusion

[76]For the reasons set out above, the claimant’s claims fail and are dismissed.