In person v Mr Muirhead, consultant — 2019

The claimant worked for Leeds Autism Services as a support worker from 8 September 2015 until he was summarily dismissed on 15 May 2018 with pay in lieu of notice. The respondent conceded that, at the material time, he was disabled by autism, dyslexia and ME. The tribunal recorded a lengthy procedural history in which the claimant repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders and to provide medical evidence, although it accepted that he could express himself clearly and in detail in writing and orally.

The tribunal accepted that many of the claimant's complaints, protected disclosures and protected acts occurred, including concerns about the Care Certificate, sleep shifts, bullying, staff reactions to health and safety issues and later reports to Leeds City Council. It also found that the respondent had made adjustments over time, including reducing sleep shifts to one per week, changing the way the Care Certificate could be assessed, and initially allowing online training at home before changing the arrangements when suitable facilities were available at work. A number of the discrimination and detriment allegations were held to be out of time, and several of the challenged practices were treated as one-off responses to the particular history of the employment relationship rather than continuing practices.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that Mr Hughes dismissed the claimant because he had concluded that the employment relationship was no longer sustainable and the claimant had become unmanageable. It rejected the case that the dismissal was because of protected disclosures, health and safety concerns, protected acts or something arising from disability. The tribunal found that the respondent's concern was the claimant's repeated refusal to accept management decisions and instructions, and the significant management time needed to deal with his grievances and correspondence, rather than the protected grounds relied on by the claimant. The ERA claims under s.100, s.103A and s.47B therefore failed, as did the victimisation case so far as it was based on dismissal.

The Equality Act claims also failed. The tribunal rejected the reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination and discrimination arising from disability allegations, finding no actionable PCP in several instances, no substantial disadvantage in others, and that the respondent had already taken substantial steps to accommodate the claimant's disabilities. It also rejected the harassment claims as time-barred and not made out on the facts. No financial award was made.