in person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and that, at the material time, he worked on adjusted hours of 7am to 3pm. The claims concerned three alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments: the timing of an interview on 16 December 2019, the timing of a second interview on 18 December 2019, and the respondent's refusal to allow the claimant's brother to attend a grievance meeting.

On the first interview complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant had completed the expression of interest form saying he would make himself available for interview and that he would prefer to be seen earlier rather than later in the day. After receiving the shortlist email on 12 December 2019 he expressly accepted the interview times. The tribunal preferred Ms Johnson's evidence about the 13 December conversation, supported by the claimant's later grievance letter, and found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the claimant was disadvantaged by the 12 noon interview. It also found that he performed well in the interview and had not proved a substantial disadvantage.

On the second interview complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant also accepted the 18 December 2019 1pm appointment on 13 December 2019 and did not raise any concern until the morning of 18 December, when he reported sick with stress and said that 1pm was too late. Ms Mould then offered two alternative morning dates at 8.30am. The tribunal held that the claimant had not been substantially disadvantaged by the original timing and that, in any event, the respondent promptly offered alternative times once the issue was raised.

On the grievance complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent had agreed to provide an independent note taker from its legal department, with notes also being taken by the manager and HR officer, and that the claimant used his memory book to check the notes and made corrections. It held that this was a practical, effective and reasonable adjustment, and that the claimant was not substantially disadvantaged by not being allowed to bring his brother or record the meeting. All complaints under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 were therefore dismissed.