The claimant contended that at an early stage of his employment he had made it apparent to the respondent that he had a mental health disability, that they subjected him to various detriments, then placed him on medical suspension, and eventually the way in which the respondent dealt with his grievances, and his treatment overall, resulted in his resignation, so that there was a discriminatory constructive dismissal. He lost his claims at the ET and appealed, claiming that the hearing was substantively unfair.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. There was nothing in the ET’s management of the hearing that rendered it unfair. The ET reached conclusions that were open to it on the facts. The judgement was Meek compliant.