A W Anderson v Curzon & Co Ltd — 2024

The Claimant, a senior consultant who is dyslexic and had disclosed this at interview, was summarily dismissed in 2022 following a disciplinary process concerning a failure to submit appraisal documentation on time and a subsequent allegation that he had knowingly falsified a rebuttal document. Employment Judge Housego found the dismissal unfair, holding that a Polkey reduction (assessing what would have happened if a fair procedure had been followed) was not appropriate, but that the Claimant had caused or contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50%, so the basic and compensatory awards are to be reduced by 50%. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also succeeded as the dismissal was without notice.

The tribunal dismissed all the disability discrimination claims (direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments) and the victimisation claim. On victimisation, the tribunal found the Claimant had not done a protected act because his grievance did not link his complaints to dyslexia. The Respondent was accepted to have corporate knowledge of the Claimant's dyslexia from the recruitment stage, but on the specific issues raised the discrimination case was not made out.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded: the Respondent had unilaterally withheld pay for part of August 2022 (the tribunal noted 19 days rather than the 11 stated by the Respondent's HR witness, on an agreed monthly salary of £5,833) and sick pay should have been paid. The holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 also succeeded because the Respondent did not account for the 12 days the Claimant had been permitted by email to carry forward (the contract itself allowed only 3). A remedy hearing was to be listed to determine quantum on all successful heads.