Jason Lock v Bryn Afon Community Housing Limited — 2022

The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of the claimant's anxiety/depression/stress, knee osteoarthritis, and cervical spondylosis/rotator cuff syndrome, but it held that his carpal tunnel syndrome was not a disability for Equality Act purposes. It also held that complaints arising before the October 2017 sickness absence were out of time and refused to extend time for them.

The s.13 direct discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal did not find facts from which it could infer that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because of disability in relation to the April 2017 HAV form and risk assessment, the January 2018 occupational health referral, the March 2018 email about sustaining absence, the July and October 2018 welfare correspondence, the November 2018 return-to-work checks, the 3 December 2018 conversation, the 5 December 2018 ARM, the grievance investigation, or the later 2019 disciplinary and occupational-health steps. In each instance it accepted the respondent's explanation that it was dealing with absence management, fitness for work, or conduct concerns.

The tribunal also dismissed the s.15 discrimination arising from disability claims, the harassment claims, and the victimisation claims. It found that Cath Hughes' March 2018 email was a reasonable HR comment in the context of a long absence, that raising ill-health retirement in October 2018 and requiring an occupational-health review before return in November 2018 was not unfavourable treatment, and that the later conduct-related steps were driven by the claimant's behaviour rather than by his disability or by his grievance and ET1. The grievance and ET1 were protected acts, but the tribunal did not find that they caused the alleged detriments.

The only successful claim was the s.20/21 reasonable-adjustments complaint, succeeding from 24 August 2018 after the August occupational-health report and welfare meeting. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage by not adjusting the claimant's duties away from heavy manual handling, not considering miscellaneous tasks or electrician work with a buddy, and not providing a step-ladder or hop-up platform. It rejected the suggested temporary supervisor-cover role as not reasonable. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and a further hearing was directed.