Case 1305642/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr T Williams v Ministry of Defence — 2021

Case reference: 1305642/2019
Decision date: 22 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Harfield Members
Panel members: Mr M Pearson, Mr M Lewis

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr T Williams

Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled by depression from 27 February 2018. Earlier complaints about reduction to half pay and the stage 1 attendance process failed on knowledge grounds. Complaints about reducing pay to nil pay also failed: the sick pay rules disadvantaged the claimant, but extending sick pay was not found to be a reasonable adjustment and the nil pay decision was justified.

Several attendance management steps were found not to be discriminatory when considered on their own, including convening the stage 2 meeting, issuing the final written improvement notice, extending it by eight weeks, and later calling the claimant to a stage 3 meeting. However, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to engage adequately with the claimant about barriers to the Security Vetting role, his request for part-time working, and his concern that a phased return would require a relatively swift return to full-time hours. The tribunal found that clearer discussion, reassurance, a flexible phased return, or a temporary part-time arrangement had a sufficient prospect of helping the claimant return to work.

The tribunal dismissed the complaints about the respite break and the stage 3 hearing pack. It also dismissed the indirect disability discrimination complaints because the claimant had not shown particular disadvantage to people sharing his disability of depression compared with others.

At the stage 3 hearing, the tribunal found that DCC Terry's questioning about whether the claimant could cope with using lethal force was linked to the claimant's depression and amounted to harassment related to disability. The tribunal found the dismissal was direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, discrimination arising from disability, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments because the panel did not give sufficient consideration to alternatives such as revisiting the Security Vetting role, a flexible phased return, or redeployment before dismissing him.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination succeeded in respect of the dismissal decision. The tribunal found the comments about use of lethal force were capable of direct discrimination but treated that detriment as harassment under section 212(1). Other direct discrimination allegations, including the Security Vetting role discussion, were dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability succeeded in part, including failures connected with the Security Vetting role, rehabilitative duties and modified working, and the dismissal. Other section 15 allegations, including progression to stage 2, the final written improvement notice, sick pay reduction to nil pay, and progression to stage 3, were dismissed or justified.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part, including failures to discuss and address barriers to the Security Vetting role, to explain or offer a sufficiently flexible phased return or temporary part-time arrangement, and to consider alternatives before dismissal. Other reasonable adjustment allegations, including respite break, sick pay extension, stage 3 pack, and some attendance management steps, were dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Indirect disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found particular group disadvantage for people with depression was not sufficiently demonstrated, and in some instances the PCP was not established or would have been justified.

Legal tests applied

30 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.