FT v 1) Mark Atkin 2) Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency 3) Jayne Stone 4) Stephen Moore 5) Carwyn Huntley — 2024

FT applied for the role of Driving Examiner with the DVSA, disclosed dyslexia and gender reassignment, and passed the online test and video interview. She failed the first driving assessment on 21 July 2022. After her complaint of 25 July 2022, the respondent investigated, accepted that the video-interview adjustments had not been provided in time and that the first assessor had used his own experience rather than agreeing adjustments, and offered her a retest with the adjustment she had suggested. FT accepted that offer in her letter of 25 August 2022.

The second assessment took place on 16 September 2022, at Sheffield rather than Leeds after the claimant’s request to move it out of cluster. Carwyn Huntley spoke to her before the assessment about the adjustments required; the claimant asked for two short breaks and left/right hand gestures. She failed that assessment, later thanked Mr Huntley for his assistance, and then complained about the written report on 29 September 2022. Stephen Moore carried out a limited fact-finding exercise and Jayne Stone replied on 20 October 2022, declining to void the result and saying the agency would not correspond further. The Tribunal found that the second complaint was handled in a reasonable way in the circumstances and that the internal comments and correspondence relied on by the claimant did not amount to detriment, harassment, or victimisation.

The Tribunal accepted that FT was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, but it found no credible evidence that either assessment, the handling of the complaints, the refusal to offer a third assessment, or the communications about the claimant amounted to direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, a failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, or direct gender reassignment discrimination. It also found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of gender reassignment. On victimisation, the Tribunal accepted that the first complaint of 25 July 2022 was a protected act, but it found no detriment because of that complaint. The claims against the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal, and all remaining claims were dismissed in the reserved judgment sent on 22 March 2024.