Mr A Alzaidi v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd — 2023

The claimant remained employed by the respondent. The tribunal found that after his final fit note expired at the end of November 2021, the parties had agreed a return to work and the claimant was ready and willing to work. The respondent prevented his return from January 2022 while seeking a return-to-work plan, but there was no contractual basis to suspend him without pay and he was not certified as unfit for work. Wages were therefore properly payable from 1 January to 30 June 2022, but not for July 2022 after the claimant refused a reasonable temporary return-to-work proposal.

The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by anxiety and depression. The tribunal found that the unpaid medical suspension was unfavourable treatment because of matters arising from disability, including behaviours and medication connected with the respondent's safety concerns. Although ensuring employees could work safely was a legitimate aim, the respondent did not justify an unpaid suspension lasting about six months, particularly given unexplained delays and the impact of non-payment on the claimant. The section 15 disability discrimination claim succeeded.

The reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination complaints failed because the alleged PCP of suspending employees on long-term sick leave without pay was not established; the tribunal found the claimant's suspension to be a one-off act and found no evidence of group disadvantage for indirect discrimination. The whistleblowing detriment complaint also failed: although the claimant made a protected disclosure about the B4 roll plant, the tribunal found the suspension without pay was caused by the respondent's safety concerns about his return to work and not by that disclosure.

For the successful Equality Act complaint, the tribunal awarded GBP 9,900 for injury to feelings, GBP 14,885.40 for net loss of wages, and interest of GBP 1,730.88. It recommended payment of GBP 518.44 into the pension scheme for lost employer pension contributions. The tribunal also recorded that the unauthorised deduction award and Equality Act wage-loss award covered the same period, so the claimant could not recover both.