Field assessor with hypertension wins victimisation claim after raising COVID safety concerns
A field assessor with 10 years' service who raised concerns about returning to work during the pandemic has won a victimisation claim against Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd. The tribunal found the company failed to properly handle her second grievance.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #disability-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #covid-19
- #hypertension
- #field-assessor
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Field Assessor from 27 August 2013.
- She was placed on furlough on 30 March 2020 due to the first COVID-19 lockdown.
- On 10 June 2020, the respondent required her to return to work.
- The claimant raised concerns about health and safety and her disability (hypertension and frequent urination due to medication).
- The respondent had constructive knowledge of her disability from 1 September 2020.
- The claimant's grievance and appeal were not upheld, but the respondent failed to hold a formal meeting for her second grievance.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Field Agent (later Field Assessor).
-
Furlough started
Claimant placed on furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
-
Return to work instruction
Respondent informed claimant she was required to return to work.
-
First protected disclosure (PID 1)
Claimant emailed concerns about health and safety and her high-risk condition.
-
Second protected disclosure (PID 2)
Claimant reiterated concerns and stated she had hypertension.
-
Third protected disclosure (PID 3)
Claimant disclosed frequent urination due to medication.
-
Sickness absence started
Claimant commenced sickness absence due to work-related stress.
-
Formal grievance (PID 4)
Claimant raised formal grievance about health and safety and disability.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent rejected grievance; claimant appealed.
-
Grievance appeal (PID 6)
Claimant appealed grievance outcome.
-
First OH report received
Occupational health report indicated claimant likely disabled.
-
Appeal outcome
Respondent upheld grievance outcome; claimant not required to return to field work.
-
Return to furlough
Claimant placed back on furlough during second lockdown.
-
Telephone discussion
Ms Harris asked claimant about trial return to work; claimant felt pressured.
-
Second grievance
Claimant raised grievance about the 29 January conversation.
-
Second grievance response
Respondent declined to hold formal meeting, stating grievance not capable of sensible response.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's disclosures about health and safety and her disability were protected, whether she suffered detriment because of them, and whether the respondent discriminated against her due to her disability or failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's disclosures about COVID-19 safety and her hypertension were protected, and that she suffered one act of victimisation when the respondent refused to hold a formal meeting for her second grievance. However, the other four alleged detriments were not victimisation.
The claims for detriment on grounds of protected disclosures, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and arrears of pay were all dismissed.
A remedies hearing will be scheduled to determine compensation. No damages have been awarded yet.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should take all grievances seriously and hold formal meetings where appropriate, even if they consider the grievance not capable of a sensible response.
- Making protected disclosures about health and safety concerns during the pandemic can be a protected act, but not every subsequent action by the employer will amount to victimisation.
- Disability discrimination claims require clear evidence that the employer knew or ought to have known about the disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments.
- Length of service and the employer's knowledge of a disability are key factors in determining whether reasonable adjustments were required.
A case about COVID-19 fears and disability
This case shows how employment disputes that arise during the pandemic can be complex, especially when an employee has a disability. The claimant, a field assessor with 10 years' service, was placed on furlough in March 2020. When asked to return to work in June 2020, she raised concerns about her safety due to her hypertension and frequent urination caused by medication. The tribunal accepted that her disclosures were protected, but found that the employer's actions – such as rejecting her grievance and requiring her to return to work – did not amount to detriment or discrimination.
What the employer did wrong
The one claim that succeeded was victimisation. After the claimant raised a second grievance about a telephone conversation in January 2021, the respondent declined to hold a formal meeting, stating the grievance was not capable of a sensible response. The tribunal found this was a detriment because of her earlier protected acts. The employer could have avoided this by simply holding a meeting, even if they thought the grievance had no merit.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers must follow proper procedures when dealing with grievances, especially from employees who have previously raised protected disclosures. It also highlights that not every negative action after a disclosure will be victimisation – the employee must show a direct link. For employees with disabilities, it is important to provide medical evidence and request reasonable adjustments early, as the tribunal found the employer did not have constructive knowledge of the disability until September 2020.
Similar cases
Engagement manager loses constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against NHS board
A manager with nine years' service failed to prove he was constructively dismissed or discriminated against after resigning from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board. The tribunal dismissed all claims including disability discrimination, harassment, and whistleblowing detriment.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dental nurse's constructive dismissal and discrimination claims rejected by tribunal
A dental nurse who resigned after securing another job failed to prove she was constructively dismissed or that her employer discriminated against her. All claims were dismissed.
Driving examiner dismissed for photographing personal data: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
A driving examiner with 14 years' service was dismissed for taking photos of a colleague's personal data. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.