Case 1601851/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Rogers v Profile Security Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601851/2020
- Decision date
- 24 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms. R. Hartwell, Mr P. Collier
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims. On the reasonable adjustments complaint, it found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was disabled at the material time, which was identified as 2019 to 2020. It also found that the practice of requiring security officers to work alone from time to time did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone without his disability, including in relation to taking breaks, and that discontinuing that practice for him would not have been a reasonable adjustment.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability harassment complaint. The claimant relied on an incident in which a supervisor left him alone with a person named in a grievance and it was said that this was done deliberately because of the grievance. The tribunal found that the conduct was not related to the claimant's disability, that the respondent did not know of the disability, and that the conduct did not have the effect of harassment. It recorded that it was unable to make a finding as to the purpose of the conduct.
The claimant's constructive dismissal claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that he resigned from his employment with the respondent on 1 September 2020 and had not been dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled at the material time (2019-2020), and that requiring security officers to work alone from time to time did not place him at a substantial disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that the incident relied on was not related to disability, that the respondent did not know of the claimant's disability, and that the conduct did not have the effect of harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned from his employment on 1 September 2020 and had not been dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.