Claimant v Ruskin v Thames Valley Housing Association Ltd and Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd — 2022

The claimant presented a claim form on 27 April 2022 alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal claim was later withdrawn and the record says it was dismissed on 24 October 2022. The April 2023 hearing therefore concerned direct race discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments, and the tribunal also considered whether Joanne Cripp had properly investigated the claimant's grievance; it found that she had.

On the race claim, the tribunal found that the respondent did not know the claimant's nationality when he was appointed and that his colleagues either did not know it or believed he was part Ukrainian. It accepted that concerns about his work were already present before the Ukraine invasion, including his failure to produce the required work plan, and found that the difficulties at the 9 and 10 March meetings arose from his lack of preparation, taking over meetings, and rude and aggressive responses to questions. The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because of his attitude and behaviour during probation, not because of his Russian ethnic origin.

On the grievance complaint, the tribunal found that Ms Cripp interviewed the claimant and the relevant managers, considered the documents, and produced a detailed report. It concluded that the grievance investigation was properly carried out and that there was no evidence of less favourable treatment or any link between the handling of the grievance and the claimant's Russian origin.

On reasonable adjustments, the respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by HIV, but the tribunal found that he never told the respondent that he had HIV and that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of that disability. It rejected the chronic depression case because there was no sufficient evidence of a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and in any event the respondent had no actual or constructive knowledge of it. The tribunal said that, even if it had had to decide the PCP issues, it would have found that the claimant was not required to work in the office every day and that the respondent did not require him to work in a stressful environment. Both the race discrimination and reasonable-adjustments complaints were therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.