Case 1307862/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Ahmad (Counsel) For v Ms A Smith — 2021
- Case reference
- 1307862/2019
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Mrs K Ahmad, Mr T Liburd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Ahmad (Counsel) For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Wilson was employed by Jaguar Land Rover from 2 January 2012 until his dismissal on 18 June 2019. The tribunal found that he was disabled by reason of mental health conditions, namely ADHD and stress/anxiety, but not because of the physical restrictions that later drove the restricted worker process. It accepted that from late 2016 he was absent from work with work-related stress and mental health difficulties, and that during occupational health involvement he also disclosed musculoskeletal shoulder problems, which led to restrictions on his work. He trialled 11 potential alternative roles but rejected them as unsuitable, and the respondent then carried out a wider search under its Restricted Worker Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The operative order refers to "direct race discrimination", but the reasons and the case narrative analyse a direct disability discrimination complaint; extracted on that basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 claim based on the claimant's prolonged absences from work from November 2016 onwards; the tribunal accepted the absences arose from disability but found no unfavourable treatment because of them. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the September 2016 grievance and the 11 December 2018 email were not protected acts because they did not contain an allegation of Equality Act breach, and in any event the RWP and dismissal were unrelated to them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Capability dismissal held fair under section 98 ERA 1996 after occupational health evidence, the Restricted Worker Procedure, trial of alternative roles, and appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
21 references- s.39 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010 burden of proof
- s.123 EqA 2010 time limits
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Taylor v Alidair Ltd
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Monmouthshire County Council v Harris
- S v Dundee City Council
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Post Office v Foley & HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Wilson v Post Office
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Adedeji v UH Birmingham NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.