Cabinet Office and Others

Case Summary

The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims including discrimination arising from disability, disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment.

The tribunal heard the full case and rejected all of the claimant's claims on their merits, finding no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, harassment, failure to adjust, victimisation, or whistleblowing detriment.

• •claims_for_discrimination_arising_from_disability
• •disability_related_harassment
• •failure_to_make_reasonable_adjustments
• •victimisation
• •whistleblowing_detriment

2207434/2020 3200883/2021 3203909/2021 3200310/2021 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondents Ms McKay v Cabinet Office (1) Hayley Miller (2) Lucy Buzzoni (3) Department of Health and Social Care(4) Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal On: 27 March – 11 April 2025 (9 May) in Chambers Before: EJ Webster Mr J Carroll Ms H Craik Appearances For the Claimant: Mr Wright (Counsel) For the Respondents: Ms L Robinson (Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s claims for discrimination arising from disability are not upheld. 2. The Claimant’s claims for disability-related harassment are not upheld. 2207434/2020 3200883/2021 3203909/2021 3200310/2021 2 3. The Claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments are not upheld. 4. The Claimant’s claims for victimisation are not upheld. 5. The Claimant’s claims for whistleblowing detriment are not upheld. REASONS The Hearing 1. The Tribunal was provided with a bundle numbering 7400 pages most of which we were not taken to. We were also provided with witness statements for the following individuals: (i) Ms McKay (the Claimant) (ii) Mr Hoar (iii) Ms Miller (Second Respondent) (iv) Ms Buzzoni (Third Respondent) (v) Mr McNeil (vi) Mr Stewart (vii) Mr Cupis (viii) Ms Al-Shemmeri (ix) Ms McTaggart (x) Ms Stuart (xi) Ms Gillander (xii) Mr Fernandes 2. All of the witnesses were available to give oral evidence and were cross examined apart from Mr McNeil as he was overseas. We have therefore attached less weight to his evidence. 3. This matter was originally listed for a 15 day hearing but due to resources was to be heard in 12 days. Due to various issues with availability on the part of the panel and t…