In person For the v Dimensions Training Solutions Limited — 2022

Mr Justin Griffiths was employed by Dimensions Training Solutions Limited as an Employability Adviser from 10 February 2020 until he was summarily dismissed on 15 October 2020. The respondent accepted that he was disabled at the material times by reason of osteoarthritis affecting his knee and leg mobility, and asthma. During the Covid lockdown the respondent required staff to work from home. The claimant said he could not work comfortably at his dining room table and asked for reasonable adjustments, including access to his chair from the Gloucester office. The respondent asked him to attend the Gloucester centre to collect it, but he was shielding and unable to do so. He then raised a grievance, sought ACAS advice, and made a written request for reasonable adjustments on 14 October 2020 before being dismissed the next morning. The respondent entered voluntary creditors liquidation on 26 July 2022 and did not attend the hearing.

On the s.15 EqA claim, the tribunal found that the claimant’s shielding requirement and his need for reasonable adjustments arose in consequence of his disability, and that the relevant unfavourable treatment included the requirement to collect the chair, the summary dismissal immediately after the written request, and the failure to provide written reasons or permit an appeal. Applying Pnaiser v NHS England, the tribunal held that those matters were because of something arising in consequence of disability. No justification defence was pursued, so the claim succeeded.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal applied the approach in Environment Agency v Rowan, Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders, General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza, Ishola v Transport for London, and Nottinghamshire City Transport Ltd v Harvey. It held that the requirement to attend the Gloucester office to collect the chair was a one-off requirement and not a PCP. However, it accepted that there was a PCP requiring the claimant to work from home without a suitable workstation, that this placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled workers, and that providing his chair would have been a reasonable auxiliary aid under s.20(5) EqA. The tribunal therefore found a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded £11,062.50 for loss of earnings, made up of two weeks’ lost pay after the notice period, the ongoing pay differential between the respondent and the claimant’s new employment, and a further 26 weeks’ future loss. It awarded interest of £955.90 on that loss. For injury to feelings, it made a middle-band Vento award of £15,000, taking into account the claimant’s evidence that he was hurt and humiliated, the timing of the dismissal before Christmas, and the medical treatment he sought. Interest on that award was £2,602.39. The total compensation including interest was £29,620.79.