Mr Abid Raja v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2019

Mr Raja worked for HMRC as a debt collections officer and was accepted as disabled from July 2016. The tribunal found that he had fibromyalgia, dyslexia and associated anxiety, and that occupational health and Access to Work reports recommended a range of aids, adaptations and training. It accepted that some adjustments were provided only after delay, and that others remained outstanding for significant periods.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that HMRC applied a PCP requiring Mr Raja to do his normal duties as a collections officer within normal contractual hours and with standard equipment, and that this placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with a non-disabled comparator. It found that HMRC knew of the disability and disadvantage, and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was breached by failures to provide Dragon software and training, training in Text Read and Write Gold, mind mapping training, dyslexia coping strategy training, and a quiet workstation away from high footfall. The quiet workstation complaint would otherwise have been out of time, but the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to consider it.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, but concluded that the dismissal was not reasonable in all the circumstances and that the investigation was inadequate. It criticised the handling of several allegations, including contact with senior managers, the suicide-related allegation, the allegation that Mr Raja left a meeting, and the email saying he would not speak to management until HR had contacted him. It held that no reasonable employer would have dismissed on the material available, although it did not disturb the final written warning.

The whistleblowing complaint failed because the grievance submitted on 17 August 2017 was not a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that it concerned Mr Raja's own treatment at work, the delays in adjustments and his complaint of discrimination, and that it was not, in his reasonable belief, made in the public interest. For that reason, the complaints that he was dismissed or subjected to detriments because he made public interest disclosures were dismissed.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal found that Mr McLean, who decided on dismissal, did not know the content of the grievance and did not dismiss Mr Raja because he had done a protected act. It accepted that the disciplinary process had a background connected with earlier concerns in May 2017 about Mr Raja contacting senior managers, but held that the pleaded August 2017 grievance was not shown to be the reason for the disciplinary action. The judgment did not quantify any compensation, and remedy matters, including any issue arising from covert recordings, were left for a further stage.