Mr D Tadesse v London Borough of Camden — 2021

The claimant, Mr D Tadesse, alleged direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, victimisation, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments arising out of events at Pancras Square Library and his eventual proposed move away from that branch. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's impairments amounted to disabilities and that the respondent knew of them. It also found that the successful claims were presented within the primary limitation period.

The direct race discrimination complaints were rejected. The tribunal considered the individual allegations across 2019 to 2021, including the Coding Club support issue, worksheet allocation, the handling of grievances, the IT access problems during the first lockdown, the occupational health referral, and the relocation discussions in March 2021. It accepted the respondent's explanations, found no appropriate comparator evidence in the way the claimant advanced the case, and concluded that the facts did not support an inference that race was an effective cause of the treatment.

The direct disability discrimination complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal held that the February 2018 occupational health report recommended a stress risk assessment which, on the evidence, required the claimant to complete the first stage himself, with management then reviewing it. It accepted Ms Aston's evidence that she told him to do so and found no facts from which it could conclude that the handling of the matter, including the later reminders and the March 2020 report, was because of disability. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaints about the occupational health referral itself.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP of requiring employees to move workplaces where there had been grievances and a breakdown in working relationships, and that the PCP was applied when the claimant was asked on 16 March 2021 to consider moving from Pancras Square Library. It held that the proposal placed the clinically extremely vulnerable claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of the anxiety caused by being directed towards Camden Town Library, which was being used as a lateral flow test centre, and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disadvantage. The tribunal concluded that there was an unreasonable delay in offering an alternative that would avoid that disadvantage, and that the failure persisted between 16 March and 12 April 2021.

The victimisation claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's January and July 2020 grievances, and his tribunal claim, were protected acts. It held that the decision to require him to move away from Pancras Square Library was materially caused by those protected acts, in particular the upset caused to colleagues by the discrimination allegations. Other alleged detriments, including the annual leave issue, the use of his private email address, work-related emails while he was signed off sick, and the occupational health email of 8 June 2021, were dismissed. No remedy was quantified in this judgment; the tribunal directed that a further remedy hearing would be listed.