Mr Lee Cotgreave v Food Standards Agency — 2024

Mr Lee Cotgreave worked for the Food Standards Agency as a meat hygiene inspector and had an historical spinal condition accepted by the Respondent as a disability. After occupational health recommendations in October 2022 and return-to-work discussions in November 2022 and February 2023, he said the adjustments had not been implemented. He raised the issue again in April and May 2023. He later resigned on 14 July 2023 after disciplinary allegations had been raised, and the Respondent continued that disciplinary process after his resignation, issuing an outcome letter on 27 October 2023.

The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add disability-related harassment. It held that the proposed amendment was substantial, significantly out of time, and only raised once the existing claims were in difficulty on limitation. The tribunal also considered the proposed harassment allegation weak, finding nothing to suggest that continuing the disciplinary process after resignation was connected to disability, and treating Mr Stephen's reference to 'alleged disabilities' as a record of what the Claimant had said at interview.

The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the three-month period in s.111 ERA 1996 and it had been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring it in time. The tribunal found that, despite some confusion in the wording of the 27 October 2023 letter, his employment had ended on 14 July 2023, time ran from that date, and the Claimant knew or ought to have known of the right and time limit for presenting such a claim. It rejected the argument that time only started when the disciplinary process ended or after the appeal period in his earlier tribunal claim.

The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was also dismissed on time-limit grounds. The tribunal held that the omission had crystallised by early February 2023 at the latest, or at the latest on 14 July 2023, so the claim was outside the three-month period in s.123 EqA 2010. It refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, finding the delay significant, the reasons for delay unpersuasive, and the balance of prejudice in the Respondent's favour. The Respondent's costs application was refused, because although the Claimant had acted unreasonably in not raising the post-resignation harassment point earlier, the tribunal took account of his litigant-in-person status and declined to make a costs order.