Dr J Aldiss v Eville & Jones (GB) Ltd and 1 other — 2022

Dr J Aldiss, who was accepted to be disabled by reason of bipolar disorder, brought claims against Eville & Jones (GB) Ltd and Mr R Jones. The Claimant withdrew his direct disability discrimination complaint in closing submissions. The tribunal found the Respondents' witnesses were generally honest and reliable, while the Claimant's evidence was frequently inconsistent or implausible, and it accepted that although his bipolar disorder could make him erratic, anti-social and unpredictable, the medical evidence about its precise effects was limited.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. It rejected the Claimant's case that the disciplinary process was a sham driven by disability-related animus or by his 11 May 2020 emails. The tribunal accepted that concerns about the Claimant's conduct existed before and after that date, including concerns about COVID-related emails, a pay rise, the furlough instruction, and financial matters. It found the suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal were carried out by people of integrity who reached their own decisions, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal made its own findings and held that the Claimant had committed gross misconduct in relation to the £30,000 payment to Body Transformation Gym. It found that the transaction was a sham arrangement designed to channel bonus money through an apparent third party without income tax being paid, and that there was never an intention for wellbeing services to be provided to the First Respondent. On that basis, the Respondent was contractually entitled to dismiss the Claimant without notice.

The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination arising from disability claim. It accepted that the abusive and threatening tone of the Claimant's 11 May 2020 emails could have arisen in consequence of his disability, but it found that the suspension, the addition of allegations, the dismissal, and the appeal outcome were not because of that conduct. It further held that appointing Mr Parsons, Mrs Saunders, and Mr Kingsnorth was not unfavourable treatment, because each was appointed as an external person of expertise and there was no attempt to influence their decisions. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found there was no PCP requiring the Claimant to work long hours and manage a heavy workload, and in any event the Respondents had already encouraged him to step back, offered a paid sabbatical, and reduced parts of his workload.

The holiday pay / unauthorised deduction claim also failed. The tribunal found that the Claimant's contractual entitlement was 25 days plus 8 bank holidays, but that he had not proved any outstanding accrued holiday at termination. It relied on evidence that he took leave, did not reliably record it, and had already been paid for 16 days on termination. No monetary award was made.