Case 2208419/2016 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Rajgopaul (Counsel) v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2208419/2016
Decision date: 21 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Glennie
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms T Breslin, Ms M Jaffe

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr C Rajgopaul (Counsel)

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal accepted as common ground that the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It found that, by 4 August 2016 at the latest, Mr Peel and Dr Rawling knew that he had type 1 diabetes and that they had earlier known he was having tests for diabetes. The tribunal also found that their denials on 4 August that they had any knowledge of his ill health were not credible, and inferred that they had agreed to take that line because they knew his disability was a factor in the decision to dismiss him.

Applying the section 136 burden of proof, and the section 13 'because of' test as explained in the authorities it cited, the tribunal held that disability was a significant influence on the dismissal decision. It relied in particular on Mr Peel's alteration of the 30 June 2015 John Lewis email and on what it found were exaggerations in the account of earlier warnings and performance concerns. On that basis, the dismissal on 4 August 2016 was held to be direct discrimination because of disability, and the separate complaint that Mr Peel and Dr Rawling refused to acknowledge the Claimant's ill health on that date was also upheld.

The tribunal dismissed the discrimination arising from disability claim and the reasonable-adjustments claim. It found that the alleged 'something arising' points other than the dismissal were not made out, and that before July 2016 the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant had a disability. The indirect discrimination complaint was not ultimately pursued. Remedies were not determined in this judgment and were left to a later hearing.

On harassment, the tribunal found that Mr Angiolini's remark about putting the Claimant out of his misery while miming shooting was unwanted conduct related to the Claimant's disability, but that it was made in a light-hearted, bantering context between friends and was not conduct for which it was reasonable to have the required effect under section 26(4). That complaint was therefore dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct discrimination because of disability under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal upheld the complaint in respect of the dismissal on 4 August 2016 and Mr Peel/Dr Rawling's denial that they had knowledge of the Claimant's ill health on that date. The other pleaded direct discrimination acts were dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—
Other	Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. Dismissed; the tribunal held that the only potentially relevant 'something arising' point was the dismissal, which was already covered by the direct discrimination finding, and the other alleged matters were not made out.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Dismissed; the tribunal found the Respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the Claimant had a disability until after the Claimant's type 1 diabetes diagnosis became known, and considered the issue largely redundant given the dismissal finding.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010. Dismissed; the tribunal accepted that Mr Angiolini's 'put you out of your misery' remark while miming shooting was unwanted conduct related to disability, but held that it was not reasonable for it to have the required effect under section 26(4).	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.