Mr Neil Gray v University of Portsmouth — 2023

This was a remitted hearing on the claimant’s section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint after the Employment Appeal Tribunal remitted the proportionality issue. The tribunal recorded that the original 2019 judgment had dismissed the disability discrimination arising from disability claim and that the appeal had succeeded only in part. No new evidence was heard at the remission hearing; the tribunal reconsidered whether dismissing Mr Gray on 4 November 2016, and rejecting his appeal in February 2017, were proportionate means of achieving the respondent’s legitimate aim of efficient running of the University’s Information Services Department.

The tribunal made further findings that Mr Gray had been absent from work for about 21 months by the date of dismissal, leaving the department to cover the workload with one fewer member of staff. It accepted that this had added to pressure already faced by the team during 2016, that existing staff were covering his duties, and that his knowledge and expertise were described as very valuable. The tribunal also found that a dismissal on ill-health grounds would have allowed the respondent to recruit a replacement with equivalent experience, which would have reduced the burden on colleagues.

The tribunal further found that staff morale remained a significant problem at the time of the dismissal decision and that Professor Galbraith’s management case at appeal reflected concerns about the claimant’s engagement with internal procedures, occupational health, HR support, and the impact of his return on staff in Information Services and HR. It accepted that Professor Galbraith’s evidence gave an accurate reflection of the mood within the department and that dismissal removed the prospect of disruption associated with a return to the team.

Balancing the effect of dismissal on Mr Gray against the impact on the Information Services team and HR staff, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had shown the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aim. It therefore held that the decision to dismiss, and the decision to reject the appeal, were justified and that the section 15 complaint failed.