in Person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, employed as an Insurance Broking Accounts Assistant from 15 November 2021, brought claims of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, victimisation, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by depression and anxiety and that the respondents knew of that disability from 3 February 2022, but rejected the race case. It found that Ms Bridges' reserved, work-focused manner explained the absence of eye contact and social conversation, and that the complained-of comments and conduct, including the 25 January 'Mexico' remark, were responses to training and work frustrations rather than to the claimant's Spanish nationality or origin.

On the dismissal and disability-linked allegations, the tribunal found that there were performance and conduct issues from early in the employment. It accepted evidence that the claimant repeatedly failed to follow payment processes, tried to use shortcuts, missed steps in the Swiss Re and Tesla work, and argued about training and lunch breaks. Although the tribunal accepted that some management steps were imperfect, including that an updated action plan was not shown to him, it found that the dismissal after the extended probationary period was because of those ongoing performance and conduct issues, not because of disability. The s.15 claim also failed because the alleged difficulties with focussing, concentrating, responding to emails and following instructions were not found to arise in consequence of disability.

The victimisation complaint failed because the 3 February 2022 email complained of bullying generally, but did not allege that the respondents had contravened the Equality Act 2010. The harassment complaint failed because the tribunal found the challenged conduct was not unwanted conduct related to race or disability. The indirect discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims also failed because the pleaded requirements to follow procedures, meet deadlines and observe lunch times were not shown to place disabled people or the claimant at a particular or substantial disadvantage. All claims were dismissed and no remedy hearing was listed.