Ian Gilmore v Streetscene Addiction Recovery — 2021

The tribunal accepted that Ian Gilmore was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because of dyslexia, and that Streetscene Addiction Recovery knew he had dyslexia from the interview stage. It also found that during his employment, supervision notes did not record discrimination or any capability procedure, and that the claimant passed probation and worked the respondent's night-shift arrangement.

The disability discrimination claims all failed. On the section 15 claim, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability: it found no evidence that he was criticised in supervision, no basis for saying he was forced to resign, and no link between disability and the investigation into allegations made by a former service user. The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 also failed because the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage from the respondent's written-work standards and no contemporaneous basis for concluding the respondent knew of any such disadvantage. The section 26 harassment claim failed because the conduct relied on was not found to be related to disability.

The wages claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was paid for the shifts he worked, that he received contractual pay during suspension, and that he had not identified any proved shortfall in pay. It added that the claim would have been out of time in any event.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 20 July 2019 after the disciplinary process and after advice from his solicitor, rather than because the respondent had committed a repudiatory breach. It rejected the allegations that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments or had engaged in harassment, and it did not accept that the respondent knew the sexual-misconduct allegation was false. All claims were dismissed. On time limits, the tribunal said the reasonable-adjustments and harassment claims appeared out of time but would have been extended as just and equitable if necessary; that did not alter the final dismissal of the claims.