Mr L Lewis v Network Rail — 2023

The claimant, a 62-year-old signaller employed by Network Rail, brought complaints of age, race and disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The respondent accepted that he was disabled at the material times by anxiety and depression. The claimant withdrew his race discrimination claim and specific allegations of victimisation, direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment, which were dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining claims were considered on their merits and dismissed.

For victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by issuing earlier Employment Tribunal proceedings on 19 January 2019. It found that delays in transfer and training were explained by the need for site-specific training, trainer availability, annual leave and COVID-19 restrictions, rather than the protected act. It also found that the allocation of a new trainer, the failed assessment on 25 March 2021, the occupational health referrals, the letter of 14 June 2021 and the question about retirement were not because of the protected act. Some alleged facts were not made out, including a request for key worker status and a failure to support the claimant.

The direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment complaints were based mainly on occupational health referrals, consent to those referrals, the 14 June 2021 letter and alleged lack of support. The tribunal found that the referrals followed the claimant's disclosure of mental health issues and medication changes, and were made to obtain advice about support and fitness for work. It found that recommendations had not been ignored, that the 14 June 2021 letter did not threaten disciplinary action as alleged, and that the respondent had not failed to provide support. The disability-related harassment allegations also failed because the conduct was not made out, was not unwanted in the relevant sense, was not related to disability in the required way, or did not have the proscribed purpose or effect.

The direct age discrimination and age-related harassment claims concerned PC asking the claimant when he intended to retire. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the question was asked after an observation, during an informal conversation, and that it related to age. It also found that the claimant was not offended or upset at the time, that the question was not less favourable treatment or a detriment, and that it did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. No remedy was awarded because all remaining claims were dismissed.