in person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and, on its own findings, by the combined effect of anxiety, panic attacks, hypochondria and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It also addressed limitation: complaints about acts or omissions before 2 December 2019 were potentially out of time, but it did not find conduct extending over a period on the facts and was not persuaded that it would be just and equitable to extend time.

On the direct disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal found no actual or constructive knowledge of disability on the part of the relevant decision-makers at the relevant times. It found that the claimant had been given support in the first half of 2019, that the refusal to appoint him to the Deputy Manager/Learning and Development Supervisor role was because he had said he did not want to do the training, and that the additional duties after the Learning and Development Supervisor resigned were allocated as part of the handover rather than because of disability.

On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant's sickness absence in November and December 2019 led to SSP under the contractual terms, and that this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. On reasonable adjustments, it found no proven PCP requiring a full day's work and additional work from other people, and found that the adjustments suggested by the claimant had in fact been offered or done. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint also failed: the tribunal found SSP and the £240 training-fee deduction were authorised by the contract, the training agreement, and the written explanation given before the deduction. The judgment was liability only, so no remedy was assessed.