In person (Assisted by Relay UK) For the v Mrs G Cross, Director — 2023

The claimant, Miss Caprice Wilton, was found to be disabled by reason of mutism and was an applicant for a warehouse operative role handled by Job Solutions Ltd for Toolstation. The parties communicated by typed messages through Indeed and by email. The claimant asked for adjustments including noise-reduction headphones, an area with less foot traffic, and an AAC app to assist communication. The respondent checked the proposed adjustments with Toolstation and was told that it could not guarantee a low-foot-traffic area and that mobile phones were not allowed on the warehouse floor. The respondent then told the claimant that the job was not good for her and later explained that the successful applicants had substantially more warehouse experience.

The harassment claim failed on all three pleaded incidents. The tribunal held that the respondent's emails asking the claimant to explain her non-verbal status and her requested adjustments were sensible and reasonable requests for information. It found those questions were the sort of enquiries contemplated by section 60(6) EqA 2010 and that they were not conduct intended to violate dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The later email telling the claimant that the job was not good for her was found to be a straightforward explanation of the respondent's decision, not a rude or insulting message.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment because of disability. It accepted that the respondent stopped processing her application, but found that the reason was the client's instruction and the recruitment context, not disability. Applying the hypothetical comparator approach, it held that a person with the same communication abilities as the claimant but without the disability would have been treated the same. The tribunal also noted that the successful candidates had significantly more warehouse experience.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found no relevant PCP requiring applicants to communicate verbally and no substantial disadvantage arising from the way the respondent handled the application. It found the parties were already communicating in writing, so the claimant was not disadvantaged in that process by being non-verbal. As a result, the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not breached. All claims were dismissed.