An employment tribunal in Belfast has dismissed all claims brought by a former employee of Alan Brown & Company (NI) Limited, trading as A, B and C Insurance. The claimant, Louise Lavery, alleged constructive dismissal, disability discrimination including failure to make reasonable adjustments, and post-employment victimisation. The unanimous decision, issued on 9 September 2026, found none of the claims well-founded.

The tribunal heard evidence over three days in August 2026. Ms Lavery, who represented herself, had worked for the family-owned brokerage from June 2011 until her resignation effective 25 April 2025. The respondent was represented by Peninsula Business Services.

Central to the case was Ms Lavery's claim that menopausal symptoms constituted a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, the tribunal found she did not meet the statutory definition of disability, which requires a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. When questioned, Ms Lavery could not identify any such long-term adverse effects.

The tribunal also found that the employer lacked the necessary knowledge of any potential disability to trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Although Ms Lavery claimed she had told management about her menopausal difficulties, two directors, Amy Logan and Jayne Atkinson, categorically denied this. Medical records did not corroborate that a doctor had advised her to speak to her employer about menopause-related workplace adjustments.

Regarding the specific issue of an uncomfortable office chair, the tribunal found that management had responded reasonably by providing temporary alternatives and ordering new chairs. There was no evidence linking the chair discomfort to menopausal symptoms in communications with the employer.

Ms Lavery also claimed constructive dismissal, arguing that the disciplinary process initiated against her in early 2025 was flawed due to conflicts of interest and improper conduct. She resigned on 28 March 2025, later citing unprofessionalism, lack of impartiality, questionable statements from colleagues, and resulting stress. The respondent argued that the reasons given at the time of resignation should be given most weight, and that the process was fair and reasonable.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had been offered the opportunity for an independent third party to handle the next stage of the disciplinary process, but she resigned before that occurred. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, applying the objective test from the case of Malik v BCCI.

The victimisation claim, which was added at the start of the hearing, failed because it depended on establishing a qualifying disability, which the tribunal had already rejected.

All claims were dismissed without further order.