Mr Ramsden v Respondent — 2020

At the CVP hearing in Leeds on 6 to 8 July 2020, Employment Judge Dr E P Morgan determined preliminary issues in Mr Ramsden's claims against SpaMedica Ltd. The tribunal held that he had the protected characteristic of disability by reason of psoriasis only. It found that the other conditions relied upon, including scoliosis, spondylolisthesis and psoriatic arthritis, did not amount to disabilities for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the protected disclosure allegations, the tribunal reviewed the pleaded episodes one by one and concluded that none of them amounted to qualifying disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996. It treated many of the emails and meetings as operational reports, queries or complaints about the claimant's own working arrangements, rather than disclosures of information tending to show breach of legal obligation, danger to health and safety, or deliberate concealment. The tribunal also found that the claimant did not hold, or could not reasonably have held, the necessary public interest and breach-of-duty beliefs in relation to those communications.

Because there were no qualifying protected disclosures, the detriment claims under section 47B ERA 1996 were dismissed. The claimant's automatic constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was also dismissed for the same reason. The tribunal did not determine the residual reasonable adjustments and unlawful deduction from wages claims at this hearing, and directed the parties to make written submissions about case management of those remaining issues.