Case 1402086/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cooper v A2B Newquay Travel Ltd Heard by Cloud Video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402086/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Panel members
- Ms S Maidment, Mr J Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cooper alleged that A2B Newquay Travel Ltd directly discriminated against him because of age and disability, and also treated him unfavourably because of something arising from disability. The company accepted that he was disabled by reason of diabetes. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Cooper, company witnesses, and the company management, and found it unlikely that Mr Martin had told Mr Cooper on 20 March 2020 to go off sick because he was vulnerable due to age and diabetes, in part because Mr Martin sent the drivers an instruction later that day to attend work on 23 March and Mr Cooper's reply the next morning did not refer to any such conversation.
The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was Mr Cooper's refusal to sign and return a new contract. The email of 25 March 2020 referred to the pandemic and the company's financial position and also enclosed a contract for signature. About half an hour after Mr Cooper said he wished to negotiate the contract, he was given notice of dismissal. The tribunal also noted that three other employees were asked to sign contracts in similar terms, but were not dismissed because they signed and returned them.
On that basis, the tribunal held that Mr Cooper had not been treated less favourably because of age or disability, so the direct discrimination claims failed. The s15 claim also failed because the need to shield was not connected to the dismissal; dismissal followed solely from the refusal to sign the contract. The tribunal observed that, if Mr Cooper had had two years' service, the dismissal would have been unfair, but he did not have the qualifying service, and all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010; the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of diabetes. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, pleaded under s15 Equality Act 2010 and described in the reasons as the claimant's need to shield. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s15 Equality Act 2010
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.
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.