Mr D Hadam v Liverpool Recruitment Company (UK) Limited and 2 others — 2022

The Claimant, Mr D Hadam, worked for about three months as an electrician's mate supplied by the First Respondent to work on a warehouse fit-out for the Third Respondent. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, and that he was of Polish nationality. By consent, the claim against Focus Payroll (Services) Limited (in liquidation), the Second Respondent, was dismissed. The remaining Equality Act claims were dismissed after a hearing before Employment Judge Cox with Ms Y Fisher and Ms S Robinson.

On the First Respondent claims, the tribunal accepted that Mr Vaughan knew of the Claimant's disability, but found no evidence that the comments and instructions on 29 June, 14 July and 15 July 2021 were because of disability or Polish nationality. It applied section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal when considering harassment, and held that the Claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal also rejected the section 15 claim because it was not satisfied that the Claimant had shown a disability-related difficulty in learning or working quickly, and it found no evidence that Mr Vaughan's conduct was connected with any such effect.

The harassment findings turned on the individual incidents. On 29 June, Mr Vaughan told the Claimant to uncoil a cable before threading it through the warehouse structure. On 14 July, he told him to break off the clips from a socket back box. On 15 July, the tribunal listened to the recording of the scissor-lift dispute and found that Mr Vaughan lost patience only after the Claimant had insisted on swapping lifts and had not yet done work that day. It found that the references to mental health were directed to the lift dispute, not an attack on the Claimant's dignity, and that it was not reasonable for the comments to have the serious effect alleged. The tribunal also found that the Claimant probably intended to provoke a recorded exchange.

The victimisation claims against the First Respondent failed. Ms Fitzpatrick replied to the Claimant's emails, invited him to call, and told him she would look into the complaints. Once Mr Vaughan had resigned, she considered there was nothing more she could do, and the tribunal accepted that this was the reason no further action was taken. The further allegation that the First Respondent did not offer more work failed because the only identified vacancy had already been filled before the Claimant applied, and a York vacancy mentioned in jobsheets never went ahead.

The claims against the Third Respondent also failed. The tribunal found that Curtis was not the Third Respondent's employee or agent, and that Jason was a HX5 site manager responsible for site management and safety checks, not someone appointed to act for the Third Respondent. The victimisation allegations against the Third Respondent failed because Mr White and Mr Ian Pragnell did not know about the discrimination complaints until after the alleged acts, and the evidence showed that the electrical work on site was genuinely winding down as originally expected.