Mr S Rajbali Pour v Metro Bank plc — 2022

Mr S Rajbali Pour was employed by Metro Bank PLC as a telephone Customer Service Representative in the Amaze Direct call-centre operation from 28 March 2018. The Tribunal heard evidence about the Academy training process, later performance ratings, sickness absence from January 2019 onwards, a capability process, and the decision to end his employment on capability grounds in May 2020 with termination taking effect on 27 June 2020. It found that the central issues were whether the bank had treated him unlawfully because of race or disability, whether it had failed to make reasonable adjustments, and whether the dismissal was fair.

On race, the Tribunal held that only one complaint was potentially in time: Mr Tucker's refusal to change the Claimant's role to a non-customer-facing role. It found no evidence that the refusal was because the Claimant was Iranian, and accepted that he had been appointed to a customer-facing role, had been supported in seeking other roles, and still had to satisfy ordinary recruitment requirements. The Tribunal held that the other alleged race discrimination and harassment acts were out of time, that the delay was substantial, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, it said those complaints would also have failed on the merits because there was no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of race.

Applying section 6 EA 2010 and the Goodwin v Patent Office approach, the Tribunal did not accept that work-related stress and anxiety amounted to a disability between June 2019 and June 2020. It found that the Claimant was disabled by sciatica only from the end of March 2020, when the adverse effect on his ability to sit for long periods was likely to last at least 12 months. That meant the earlier disability complaints, including the June and July 2019 warnings, the bonus and progression issues, were not open to him, and the Tribunal also concluded that they were out of time. It found that the dismissal-related disability complaints had to be assessed separately, including the claims under section 15 and the reasonable-adjustment duty.

On the dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the Respondent had already made some adjustments, including allowing regular breaks and ordering a specialist chair, and that it had repeatedly sought Occupational Health input and discussions about return to work. It found that the Claimant refused Occupational Health referral and would not engage meaningfully in those discussions. The Tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining attendance and service levels, and that the Respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments. It therefore rejected the disability discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and unfair dismissal complaints.