Ms L Halsall, counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal found that Mr Clothier had a long-term disability arising from the 2004 house fire: PTSD with substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities, including anxiety and hypervigilance around enclosed spaces. It did not accept claustrophobia as a separate diagnosed impairment, and it treated the portacabin concerns as part of the PTSD-related anxiety. The respondent had made some adjustments for the physical effects of the burns, but not for PTSD after 2008.

On the whistleblowing complaint, the tribunal found that on 22 July 2020 the claimant raised concerns to Scott Weston about the temperature-check portacabin being a confined space with limited ventilation, the lack of a cleaning schedule, and the absence of a warning system or protocol for positive results. It found that similar safety concerns were raised to Mr Coote, Mr Chapman, Mr Weston again, and Mr McGhin, and that the disclosures were qualifying disclosures made in the public interest. The tribunal also found that only some of the broader matters alleged were actually raised on each occasion, and that the claimant did not always mention PTSD or claustrophobia at the earlier meetings. However, it held that the later threat of disciplinary action, suspension, investigation, disciplinary process and discretionary sick pay decision were not on the ground that he had made protected disclosures.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability until 5 October 2020, when he explained the 2004 fire and his PTSD-related difficulties during the disciplinary hearing. It therefore rejected the direct discrimination allegations, finding that the challenged comments, suspension, investigation wording, hearing conduct, sick pay decision and email remark were not because of disability. It also rejected the harassment complaint, finding the conduct unwelcome but not related to disability.

The tribunal accepted that the requirement to use the portacabin for temperature checks was a PCP that put the claimant, and other people with similar PTSD, at a particular disadvantage, but it accepted the respondent's health-and-safety aim as legitimate and found the policy proportionate in the circumstances of June to September 2020. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent did not know of the disability-related disadvantage until 5 October 2020, and because the proposed alternatives were either not made out on the facts or were not reasonable at that stage. After 5 October the respondent obtained further medical evidence and later agreed that the claimant could use an in-ear temperature check, but he did not return to work. No claim succeeded, and no compensation was awarded.