Case 1803158/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Galloway v Rentokil Initial UK Limited HELD AT: Hull — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803158/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Galloway
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who has type 1 diabetes, was dismissed after taking and eating a chocolate bar at a customer's premises during what the respondent accepted was a medical emergency. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted the claimant was disabled, knew of his disability, and no longer disputed that the behaviour arose from diabetes.
The tribunal found that the taking of the chocolate was an operative cause of dismissal and arose from disability, but also found that the respondent had legitimate aims of maintaining confidence in lone-working employees and protecting its reputation. It accepted that the dismissal had a substantial impact on the claimant, but concluded that the respondent's concerns about future conduct, including the claimant's lack of reassurance during the disciplinary and appeal process, meant dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving those aims.
The section 15 disability discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed. The tribunal also stated that, if its causation conclusion was wrong, the claim would fail in the alternative because the dismissal would have been caused by matters it found did not arise from disability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint was a section 15 disability discrimination allegation and that it was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 disability discrimination
- legitimate aim
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.