Claims dismissed when the claimant could not demonstrate evidence of less favourable treatment to shift the burden to the respondent.

The claimant commenced work with the respondent in 2011 as a Youth Worker.  This was based at the Loughshore Campus which was one of the Education Other than at School (EOTAS) centres run by the respondent.  This campus is unique in that it is managed by a Principal whereas the other centres are managed by a Senior Teacher.

The claimant brought the claim relating to race, sex and disability discrimination.  The claimant is a female, of mixed race and suffered from fibromyalgia having been diagnosed in 2021.  The claimant stated she had an excellent working relationship with the principal but that this changed with what she alleged was less favourable treatment relating to her proposed return to work in June 2022 after being off with long-Covid. 

In October 2022 an occupational health report stated that the claimant would not be able to undertake the work as required within the Loughshore Campus considering the nature of the needs of the pupils and the physical limitations suffered by the claimant.  The claimant also outlined issues relating to having a specific space to work from but this was not possible due to space constraints at the campus and that a requested transfer to a more rural EOTAS closer to home had been refused.  It was refused on the basis that there was no funding for a separate Youth Worker at that other campus.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the claimant to support the claims of discrimination fell short of that sufficient to raise the requirement for the burden of proof to shift to the respondent.  The Tribunal found that there was a volume of evidence which demonstrated how the respondent had tried to resolve the needs relating to disability discrimination.   For example, the evidence was clear that space was at a premium at the Loughshore campus so a specific space could not be given. Additionally, the respondent had made a reasonable decision that it could not properly set aside the specialist finding from occupational health and the likely capabilities of the claimant to deal with physical confrontation within the workplace.  Accordingly, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

This case demonstrates the importance of having an evidenced based approach to issues that may arise within the workplace especially when it comes to making reasonable adjustments.  The reliance upon the specialist report from occupational health when it came to the continuation of work in October 2022 was something which the Tribunal recognised as being the appropriate decision.  Additionally, the fact that the respondent had outlined options in terms of space but bearing in mind that space was at a premium on the campus was sufficient to ensuring that there was no discrimination.

You can find the case in full here.