Mr B Johnson-Brown v Royal Free Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The claimant, Mr B Johnson-Brown, brought discrimination, harassment, reasonable adjustments and victimisation claims arising from his work in HLP and later NELCSU, with the respondent being Royal Free Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal refused a late application to amend the claim to add further allegations, applying the Selkent test and finding the proposed amendments were inadequately particularised, largely out of time, and would significantly widen the enquiry and cause prejudice. It also held that, for the claims before it, the respondent and the relevant individual decision-makers did not know of the claimant's dyslexia until around 6 May 2021, when the 2019 DSA report was provided during the grievance investigation, and that knowledge of any substantial disadvantage for reasonable adjustments did not arise until 14 February 2022, when the workplace needs assessment was produced.

The direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Jemma Gilbert's March 2021 email about the claimant's draft client communication was work feedback, not an attempt to "teach him a lesson". It also rejected the allegations that the respondent discriminated by reducing study time, ignoring the 16 July 2021 occupational health report, delaying further assessments, or failing to implement the 2019 DSA software recommendations, finding no evidence that those matters were because of dyslexia and, for the earlier allegations, that the respondent lacked the relevant knowledge at the material time.

The disability-related harassment and reasonable adjustments claims also failed. The tribunal found that the emails about other roles and vacancies were sent because the claimant's project was ending and were intended to help identify future work, rather than to create a hostile environment related to disability. On reasonable adjustments, it found there was no shown knowledge of the disability or the alleged disadvantage before the relevant dates, that the 2019 DSA report had not been shown to have been shared with the respondent before May 2021, and that once the workplace needs assessment was received in February 2022 the respondent took steps to progress software and support-worker arrangements.

The race discrimination and victimisation claims were dismissed for lack of evidence and causation. The tribunal said the race discrimination allegations about grievance delays, Mr Moore's view of the evidence, and the temporary absence of a line manager were bare allegations that did not shift the burden of proof. On victimisation, it held that the June and July 2020 emails and slide deck were about pay and regrading rather than Equality Act complaints, that only the March 2021 grievance was a protected act, and that no causal link was shown between any protected act and the alleged detriments. The grievance appeal on 14 January 2022 was not upheld, no monetary award was made, and the claimant's costs/preparation time order application was refused because the tribunal did not find the respondent's conduct of the proceedings unreasonable.