Mr R Perryman v Ellis Event Power Services Limited and 1 other — 2021

The tribunal accepted that Mr Perryman had a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 based on injuries to his right hip, leg and knee, and that the respondents knew of that disability at all material times. His role at Ellis Event Power Services Limited involved both yard-based mechanical work at Exeter and some field driving, and the tribunal found that he had been doing a substantial amount of driving before the events in February 2021.

After Mr Perryman's accident on 24 February 2021, the company required him to work from the Exeter yard and not to drive a company vehicle or use the forklift until assessments were completed. An occupational health report on 29 April 2021 recommended an automatic vehicle with cruise control for longer-distance driving and a specific medical for forklift work. At the meeting on 11 May 2021 the parties agreed that the company would source an automatic vehicle and arrange the necessary medical and risk assessments, but although a replacement Freelander was purchased on 8 July 2021 and became available in early August, the assessments were not completed before Mr Perryman resigned on 23 September 2021.

The direct discrimination claim under section 13 was dismissed because the tribunal found that a hypothetical non-disabled employee in Mr Perryman's position would have been treated in the same way, and Mr Goddard was not a suitable comparator. The discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 was also dismissed: the tribunal accepted that the respondents' actions were directed to health and safety and held that the delay in providing the automatic vehicle was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal held that the requirement not to use the forklift put Mr Perryman at a substantial disadvantage, and that the lack of timely forklift medical and risk assessments meant the respondents failed to comply with their duty to make reasonable adjustments. It found, however, that the automatic vehicle adjustment was provided in a timely way. The harassment claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the disputed conduct had the requisite purpose or, viewed objectively, the requisite effect, and it found no evidence that the CCTV at the Exeter yard was related to disability.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings and £897.53 interest, making a total award of £7,897.53. It rejected a claimed financial loss of £2,033.89 because it was not satisfied that the claimed absence from work was caused by the discrimination, and because Mr Perryman had resigned for a planned move to another job with better pay. The tribunal made a declaration and no recommendation.