In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal found that Mr Brown had a history of depression, anxiety and related symptoms going back to 2009, including episodes in 2011 and 2015 and absence from work, and held that this amounted to a disability within the Equality Act 2010. It found the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities and was long-term or likely to recur, reaching that conclusion by no later than 2015.

It then considered a series of allegations of direct disability discrimination arising from events in May to December 2022, including the fact-finding meeting on 4 May 2022, the grievance process, the investigation report wording, the disciplinary hearing on 5 September 2022, the ACAS grievance point, the WhatsApp group, the Christmas event email, and the training course on 20 December 2022. For each allegation the tribunal found either that the factual complaint was not made out, that there was no less favourable treatment, or that the respondent had established a non-discriminatory explanation linked to its policies, investigation needs, or the claimant's own actions.

The tribunal held that the direct discrimination claim failed in its entirety. It referred to the burden of proof authorities it cited, but concluded there were no facts from which it could infer treatment because of disability. It accepted the respondent's explanations, including that it did not tell employees in advance that a meeting was a fact-finding meeting, that suspension was used to preserve evidence and prevent further inappropriate posts, and that the wording in the investigation report and the questions at the disciplinary hearing were not shown to be discriminatory.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal said the claim had not been clearly particularised, but it considered the respondent's understanding of the alleged PCPs. It found no substantial disadvantage or unmet duty in relation to advance notice of the meeting, the report comments, the disciplinary hearing date, suspension pending investigation, or the open invitation at training to identify a need for extra time. It also held that the claimant either did not ask for the adjustment he now relied on, or was not disadvantaged in the way required, and dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim. No remedy was awarded.