Mr I Sadiq v National Audit Office — 2017

The claimant was employed as a student chartered accountant and later assistant auditor on a fixed-term training arrangement. The tribunal found that he was disabled from before 18 April 2016 by depression and anxiety, and that the respondent ought reasonably to have known of that disability from the occupational health evidence dated 18 April 2016 and the surrounding sickness absence history.

The direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 failed. The tribunal found that the refusal to change the claimant's line manager or HR contact, the handling of the GP appointment request, and the contents of Corrine Tanner's reports and emails were not less favourable treatment because of disability. It accepted that those actions were taken to manage attendance, performance, and information-sharing with HR and the decision-maker, rather than because the claimant had depression and anxiety.

The reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010 also failed. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had established the PCPs he alleged in the way he framed them, and it was not satisfied that he had shown a substantial disadvantage flowing from those PCPs. It found that the respondent had engaged with college tuition, study leave, reduced hours, workload adjustments, and occupational health advice over a sustained period, and that the claimant had not shown mediation or Remploy engagement would have removed a relevant disadvantage.

The s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded in relation to the capability process and the dismissal. The tribunal found that sickness absence and reduced productivity were things arising in consequence of disability, and that these were an important part of the reason for the respondent's actions. The respondent accepted that efficient operation of the business was a legitimate aim, but the tribunal held that initiating Annex 5, dismissing the claimant, and refusing to reinstate him were not proportionate because the respondent relied on out-of-date occupational health material, did not allow him a further attempt at the December 2017 tuition/exam stage, and did not give prior warning that dismissal might follow.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was capability, but that the decision to dismiss in November 2017 fell outside the band of reasonable responses. It relied on the use of the Annex 5 capability route rather than the fuller underperformance procedure, the absence of any prior warning that dismissal was in prospect, and the failure to obtain more recent medical advice before concluding that the claimant had no realistic prospect of meeting the required standard. Liability was decided only; the tribunal listed reinstatement, contributory fault, hurt feelings, loss of earnings, and the basic award for a later remedy hearing, so no monetary award was fixed in this judgment.