Mr Z Patel v Aecom Limited — 2022

Mr Patel was employed by AECOM as an engineer and the respondent accepted that he had ulcerative colitis and met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that complaints relating to events between September 2020 and January 2021 were outside the normal limitation period, but extended time on a just and equitable basis to 15 March 2022. It did so because the claimant's disability affected his ability to bring the claim promptly, his misunderstanding of the time limit was understandable, and there was no forensic prejudice to the respondent.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that AECOM had already made a number of adjustments for the claimant, including reducing site inspections, allowing flexible reduced hours, and later changing the reporting arrangements. It accepted that the AM/PM email requirement was a PCP and that the claimant was disadvantaged by morning symptoms, but found the respondent in practice allowed flexibility and did not enforce the deadline rigidly. It also found that the general requirement to progress work with reasonable expedition, the reduced-hours arrangement, and the ICE progress requirement did not give rise to liability because the respondent had made adjustments that could alleviate the disadvantage. The only office-attendance complaint failed because the claimant did not show that the four-days-a-week requirement placed him at a substantial disadvantage.

For section 15, the tribunal found that the written warning in December 2020 and the September 2021 underperforming rating were unfavourable treatment and that the performance shortcomings arose in consequence of disability, because fatigue and flare-ups affected performance and communication. It nonetheless accepted that AECOM had legitimate aims in seeking to improve performance and meet business requirements, and held that the warning and underperforming rating were proportionate responses. The harassment complaint based on the 25 November 2021 meeting failed because the tribunal found the discussion of the claimant's condition was not unwanted and did not amount to conduct that violated dignity or created the prohibited environment.

The victimisation complaint failed because, although the 30 November 2021 grievance was a protected act, the tribunal found no causal link between that grievance and either the 24 January 2022 underperforming rating or the 1 February 2022 PIP extension. The unlawful deduction claim also failed: the tribunal held that no salary increase was lawfully due because the claimant had been rated underperforming, and in any event most employees did not receive a pay rise in 2020 because of the pandemic. All claims were dismissed.