In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Andrew Dickson brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd. The respondent accepted that he was disabled at all relevant times by reference to moderate depression, but the tribunal found that he was not disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 in relation to dyslexia, OCD, anxiety or ASD. The tribunal identified the relevant period as mid-2017 to 4 July 2019 and considered disability-related harassment, reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal.

On disability status, the tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that dyslexia, OCD, anxiety and ASD met the statutory definition. It relied on the dyslexia vocational evaluation, the limited medical evidence for OCD and anxiety, the absence of any formal ASD diagnosis, and the claimant's own evidence about those conditions. It also found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had a separate disability-related disadvantage in relation to anxiety or OCD.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that QBE had already taken steps to support the claimant, including arranging a dyslexia evaluation, occupational health input, National Autistic Society guidance, text-to-speech software, meeting notes and agendas, task-planning tools, and time for training and assistance. The tribunal held that the claimant did not consistently engage with the support offered, and that the specific adjustments relied upon were either made, not requested, or not shown to be necessary. The reasonable adjustments claim therefore failed.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal held that the informal and formal PIP process, the warnings, and the redundancy selection were not imposed because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found that the warnings followed from the claimant's performance issues and his lack of engagement with the support available to him. In any event, the tribunal held that the performance management and the redundancy selection criteria pursued the legitimate aim of retaining the best performer for the role going forward and were proportionate.

On harassment and dismissal, the tribunal rejected the disability-related harassment allegations concerning software testing, the Will Ferrell comparison, the alleged denial of business analysis work, and the year-end appraisal comment; allegation (c) was withdrawn. It found there was a genuine redundancy situation after work moved from the Actuarial Development team to the DMA team, that the selection criteria were fair, that Mr Ware scored 44 to the claimant's 15, and that the claimant was given consultation and alternative employment opportunities which he did not pursue. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.