Mr A Maw v Secretary of State for Education — 2023

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 5 July 2022, and that the hearing before Employment Judge Miller and lay members Mrs Anderson-Coe and Mr Eales concerned only remaining claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on disabilities of hearing impairment and osteoarthritis, both of which the respondent accepted were disabilities within section 6.

On the work-from-home issue, the tribunal found that the respondent as an institution ought reasonably to have known about the claimant's osteoarthritis from interview in December 2020, and that Mr Cartwright actually knew by 14 April 2021. It accepted that home working caused the claimant discomfort because of osteoarthritis and that the requirement to work from home during the pandemic was a PCP. However, the tribunal held there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found the claimant was allowed to attend the office once guidance permitted, had not explained at the time that office attendance would alleviate osteoarthritis-related discomfort, and did not show that office working would in fact have avoided the disadvantage. It also found that chairs and a rising desk were available in the office, and that the respondent reasonably understood from the claimant's communications that his home arrangements, together with breaks and movement, were sufficient on a temporary basis.

On online group meetings, the tribunal found that the respondent knew of the claimant's hearing impairment from interview in December 2020, and that Mr Cartwright actually knew by 29 March 2021. It accepted that the requirement to attend online group meetings such as Microsoft Teams put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he was less able to hear what was being said. The tribunal nevertheless dismissed the claim because the respondent had explored and implemented measures including subtitles, transcripts, recordings, slower speaking and headset use, while awaiting the outcome of medical hearing assessment. It further found that after one unsuccessful attempt at minuting a meeting, the claimant was not required to minute meetings again, so any disadvantage connected with that task was removed.

On the dismissal-related PCP, the tribunal treated the performance improvement process as an expression of the requirement to perform to the standards of an Executive Officer. It found that the claimant's difficulties concerned pace and prioritisation, task management and identification, IT skills, and note taking, but that the evidence did not show those matters arose from his disabilities. The tribunal found instead that the claimant himself had attributed his problems mainly to the pandemic, remote working and slower than expected progress in IT skills, and that his note-taking difficulty pre-dated his hearing problems. It therefore held that the PCP did not put him at a substantial disadvantage because of disability, so no duty to make adjustments arose in relation to extending probation, delaying dismissal pending further assessments, office attendance, or redeployment. All remaining disability discrimination claims were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.