In person For the v Respondent — 2018

Mr J Lenton was employed by Sam Corporation Limited as Director of Tennis at Dukes Meadows. He alleged disability discrimination based on depression, victimisation, unfair dismissal, breach of contract about a bonus, holiday pay, and wrongful dismissal after he was suspended on 3 January 2018 and dismissed on 18 January 2018. The tribunal accepted that he was depressed in January 2018 and that the condition affected concentration and dealing with problems, but it found no evidence that the impairment was long-term or likely to recur. It therefore held that he was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and dismissed the claims for direct and indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal found that the appeal letter relied on as the protected act complained of unfairness and inability to participate in the process because of ill health, but did not amount to an allegation that the respondent had contravened the Equality Act. In any event, it found no causal link between that letter and the refusal to appoint an independent appeal chair, the refusal to adjourn further, or the appeal outcome.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that Mr Marks had lost trust in the claimant and believed he was not devoting sufficient time and attention to his duties, but that belief was not based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation. It found that the Clockworks data did not record the claimant's off-court time and that he had never been required to account for his hours in the way alleged. The tribunal also held that some of the disciplinary allegations were based on misleading or false premises and that the decision to dismiss had been predetermined, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the accepted misconduct, including taking his girlfriend to the Miami trip against instruction and not forwarding the LTA document, did not amount to repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal.

The bonus claim failed because the claimant's bonus was discretionary under the written contract and the tribunal found no implied term entitling him to a Christmas bonus. The tribunal considered the refusal to pay a bonus in the context of falling tennis revenue and concerns about the claimant's performance, and held that the decision was not irrational or perverse. The holiday pay issue was not determined at liability; the tribunal said it would be considered at the remedy hearing on 30 August 2019, together with Polkey and contributory conduct. Remedy overall was deferred and no award figure was determined in this judgment.