Mr R Paul v Roke Manor Research Limited — 2025

Mr Paul brought disability discrimination complaints under sections 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 arising from the termination of his employment. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled at the material time by reason of post-traumatic stress disorder and co-morbid depression and anxiety. It did not accept that Asperger's syndrome was proved to be a disability on the evidence before it. The respondent knew by October 2022 that he had a long-term mental health condition and needed flexible working, and the claimant first referred to Asperger's at the probation review on 25 May 2023.

On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal found that the dismissal was because the claimant failed probation for technical reasons, not because of any disability-related matter. It relied on feedback from the three projects, the probation review, and the appeal outcome, all of which said the claimant had not shown the level of technical ability required for a Grade 6 engineer acting as a Technical Lead/Solution Architect. Even if the claimant's asserted effects of disability were assumed to arise from his condition, the tribunal held the dismissal was not because of those matters. It also held that dismissal was a proportionate means of pursuing the respondent's legitimate aims of ensuring competent technical staff, maintaining an effective probation system, and keeping a competent workforce.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal accepted the PCP of requiring employees to achieve and maintain a certain standard of performance, but held that the claimant had not proved the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that he was placed at the asserted substantial disadvantage of intrusion and inability to concentrate fully on his work. Because that knowledge was not proved, the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered and the tribunal did not need to decide the suggested adjustments. All complaints were therefore dismissed; the hearing had been limited to liability and no remedy was determined in this judgment.