Mr. P.McQueen v General Optical Council — 2018

The claimant, Mr P McQueen, had admitted disabilities including dyslexia, Asperger's syndrome, neurodiversity and left-sided hearing loss. The tribunal found that the respondent had initially put in place adjustments for written follow-up to verbal instructions, a recording pen, and proofreading support, and that further adjustments were later implemented by July 2017. It concluded that many of the early disability complaints were out of time, and that the disputed behaviour around standing up, speaking loudly, and reacting badly to instructions was not caused by disability but by the claimant's response to being told to do tasks or being told he was wrong.

On the merits, the tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims, including complaints of reasonable adjustments, direct discrimination, harassment and discrimination arising from disability. It found that the January 2017 warning, the appraisal comment, the job description dispute, and the June 2017 disciplinary were either out of time or not because of disability. It also dismissed the race and sex discrimination and harassment claims, including the allegation based on the use of the word "geezer" and the contention that Ms Patel's description of the claimant as intimidating was linked to race or sex; the tribunal found her reaction would have been the same if the claimant had been white or female.

The grievance lodged in July 2017 was treated differently. The tribunal held that the respondent took an unusual and unsatisfactory time to deal with it, and that the grievance-handling process formed conduct extending over a period until the outcome on 18 January 2019. It found that the delay amounted to victimisation because the grievance raised Equality Act complaints about disability-related matters, and HR left it in the "too difficult" box because those allegations made the matter harder to deal with. Remedy for that victimisation, and any possible ACAS uplift, was left to a further hearing.