Mr A Blackmore v FedEx Express Transport Ltd — 2025

The Tribunal found that Mr Blackmore was disabled under s.6 EQA 2010 by epilepsy and a mental health impairment. It dismissed his complaints against FedEx Express Transport Ltd of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair constructive dismissal.

For direct disability discrimination, the Tribunal found that Mr Preston did not send Mr Blackmore home or prevent him from attending work on 8–9 March or 14–15 September 2023. On each occasion Mr Blackmore assessed himself as unwell, notified management and took sick leave; arrangements to cover his delivery route did not amount to barring him from work. The alleged treatment was therefore not proved. The counting of disability-related absences in the attendance-management process was not a complaint before the Tribunal.

The reasonable-adjustments complaint relied on the mental health impairment. The Tribunal found that FedEx knew or should have known of Mr Blackmore's epilepsy from the start of his employment and, by 10 March 2023, had sufficient information about his mental health to be fixed with constructive knowledge of that disability after failing to make further enquiries. It nevertheless rejected the asserted provision, criterion or practice of accepting resignations without challenge or time to reflect. Mr Blackmore had previously been persuaded not to resign, and both Mr Sparks and Mr Martin asked whether he was sure on 14 November 2023. The event was a one-off rather than the application of the asserted practice, so the complaint failed without the Tribunal needing to determine a reasonable adjustment.

For constructive dismissal, the Tribunal found that the delivery load had not been shown to be unreasonable: the supervisors did not consider it excessive, Mr Blackmore could have asked for the van to be weighed, and he was told that undelivered items could be brought back. It found that Mr Sparks did not threaten dismissal because Mr Blackmore declined to take the load; he explained that walking off site without authorisation could lead to disciplinary action and dismissal, and suggested a written resignation if Mr Blackmore was determined to leave. The Tribunal considered Mr Blackmore's recovery from Covid-19, epilepsy symptoms that morning and mental health condition, but found neither this interaction nor the preceding events, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Mr Blackmore was therefore not constructively dismissed.

As no complaint succeeded, the Tribunal made no monetary award. The £115,115 figure in the judgment appeared only as a possible statutory cap in the list of remedy issues, not as compensation awarded.