in person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a security officer employed by the respondent since 30 January 2018, developed gout symptoms in early 2021 and received a formal diagnosis on 14 May 2021. The tribunal found that by 7 June 2021 the claimant was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes and that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the disability from that point. Before that date, in particular on 28 April 2021, it found it was too soon to say the condition was long-term, so the claimant was not then disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010.

The disability discrimination claim based on April and June 2021 events was dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that the claim was presented on 24 November 2021, that the April and June allegations were already outside the three-month time limit, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. In the alternative, it found that the 7 June 2021 first written warning was issued for a combination of uniform breaches, including missing shirt and tie, EarPods, and trainers, and that the respondent's requirement for a smart, identifiable security uniform was a legitimate aim.

On the merits of the April allegation, the tribunal did not accept that Mr Grant was threatening the claimant about trainers, and found the exchange was driven by the earlier fire alarm incident rather than the claimant's footwear. On the October 2021 allegation, the tribunal found that trainers were not a feature of the incident at all. It therefore dismissed the remaining section 15 claim because the October conduct was not because of something arising in consequence of disability.

The Working Time Regulations complaint concerned rest breaks between sites. The tribunal held that claims before 12 August 2021 were out of time, and that from 12 August to 18 October 2021 the respondent had not refused to permit a rest break within regulation 30(1) because it did not realise the full extent of the problem until the grievance on 11 October 2021 and then changed the rota four days later. In the alternative, it found that the claimant was entitled to a rest break, that some days did not provide a statutory 20-minute break because of gout-related slower walking, that regulation 21(b) applied to the respondent's security and surveillance work, and that the lunch arrangement was not equivalent compensatory rest under regulation 24. No award was made because the tribunal found there was no jurisdiction under regulation 30(1).