Mr Halstead v J D Wetherspoons — 2025

Mr Halstead was employed by J D Wetherspoons Plc and the respondent accepted that he was disabled by reason of autism. The tribunal held that the discrimination complaints were in time because they formed conduct extending over a period from 17 August 2023, when the first investigation meeting was called, to 8 March 2024, when the respondent decided not to offer compensation or a goodwill gesture. It also found that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability from the claimant's earlier employment record, or at least from 11 May 2019.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal identified PCPs including the use of a standard investigation process after the discount-policy issue, no right to be accompanied at investigation meetings, and the standard handling of disciplinary, grievance and long-term sickness meetings. It found that those PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because they caused anxiety and did not accommodate his need for advance notice, one-to-one explanations, and his mother's attendance. The tribunal held that reasonable steps included advance notice of meetings, explaining policies and documents one-to-one, contacting Ms Halstead in advance, allowing her attendance, trying to resolve matters informally, and ensuring disability information followed the claimant when he transferred pubs. It found that the respondent failed to take those steps until around mid-December 2023, so the reasonable adjustments claim succeeded.

On harassment related to disability, the tribunal found that several matters amounted to unwanted conduct related to disability, including the way the discount breach was investigated, the standard handling of the long-term absence and grievance process, the failure to respond in writing to the grievance, and the refusal to make a compensatory gesture. However, although it accepted that the claimant genuinely perceived the conduct as intimidating, it held that that perception was not reasonable in the circumstances because the respondent was entitled to investigate and was using standardised performance-management procedures. The harassment claim was dismissed. The reasons provided do not record a monetary award or remedy order.