Claimant v Brierly Hill Tyre Services Ltd T/a BTS Garage — 2025

The claimant worked as a mechanic for the respondent and was absent from work from 9 May 2023. The parties agreed that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by anxiety and depression, and the tribunal recorded that he had actual knowledge of that disability from 15 May 2023. The respondent obtained occupational health and GP evidence during the absence, both of which indicated that the claimant was not yet fit to return and could not give a reliable timescale for return.

On the direct discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected the claimant's proposed comparator as misconceived and said the correct comparison was with a non-disabled mechanic who had the same length of absence. It found the claimant had not shown facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of disability, and accepted the respondent's evidence that it would have acted in the same way to a non-disabled mechanic with the same prolonged absence. That claim was dismissed.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found that the dismissal on 8 December 2023 was because of the claimant's absence from work between May and December 2023, and that the absence arose from his disability. It accepted the respondent's legitimate aim of ensuring adequate resources to meet operational and customer demands cost effectively in a small garage. Balancing that aim against the discriminatory effect, the tribunal held that dismissal without a final meeting was proportionate in the particular facts, relying on the absence of any return date, the medical evidence about anger outbursts and risk, and the November 2023 incident when the claimant attended unannounced and intimidated Helen Thursfield.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because, although the tribunal accepted a PCP requiring mechanics to work a full working day with little flexibility, it held that the claimant was not at a substantial disadvantage while signed off sick and not attending work. The proposed adjustments were treated as relevant only once a GP-certified return-to-work date existed, and the tribunal found that some of them were speculative or outside the respondent's control. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the grievance of 8 November 2023 was a protected act, but found on the evidence that the real reason for dismissal was the medical evidence about the claimant's ongoing absence, anger outbursts and lack of return date, not the grievance.