Mr M Gaskell First v Ministry of Justice Second Respondent: Legal Aid Agency — 2020

The Tribunal dismissed all claims brought by Mr Gaskell against the Ministry of Justice. It held that the first claim for indirect age discrimination failed because the Managed Moves Policy did not place employees aged 60 and over at a particular disadvantage; the evidence before the Tribunal showed that those over 60 were overrepresented in senior grades. The Tribunal also said that, if a disadvantage had been established, the policy would in any event have been a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of operational need and avoiding redundancies.

The Tribunal rejected the first claim’s protected disclosure detriment allegations. It found that the complaint about the way the Leeds ACM role was filled did not amount to detriment on the ground of the October 2018 protected disclosure. The exclusion from the relevant email group was found to have been accidental, and the permanent appointment of PE was made through the managed move process because he had been in the role for over a year and would otherwise have become surplus. The Tribunal found no evidence that the claimant’s protected disclosure materially influenced that decision.

In the second claim, the Tribunal dismissed both the victimisation claim and the whistleblowing detriment claim. It accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by bringing the first claim and that he had made a protected disclosure in October 2018, but found that the suspension on 11 May 2020, the restriction of systems access, the investigation and the disciplinary process were all driven by concerns about the claimant’s conduct, including his stated intention to contact the Law Society and the respondent’s concern about possible misconduct and reputational risk. It found that the respondent was not acting because of the protected act or the protected disclosure.

The third claim for victimisation was held to be out of time and the Tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis. It also rejected the claim on the merits, finding that the continuation of suspension, the handling of grievances, the occupational health reviews, the disciplinary proceedings, the final written warning and the appeal outcome were all attributable to the claimant’s conduct and ongoing concerns about his emails and behaviour, not to the bringing of the first or second claims.

The fourth claim was also held to be out of time, and the Tribunal refused to extend time. On disability status, it found that the claimant’s 2020 to 2021 symptoms were an acute stress reaction to workplace events rather than a long-term substantial impairment within section 6 Equality Act 2010, and that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that he was disabled. Because of that finding, the reasonable adjustments claim failed at the threshold stage.

The Tribunal further rejected the section 15 claim. It held that the claimant had not shown that he was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of disability, and that the treatment complained of was because of the claimant’s conduct. The Tribunal also noted that the claimant’s pleaded case about suspension exacerbating mental health difficulties was not the same as saying that his conduct was a manifestation of disability. All claims were dismissed.