Mr J White v Transport for London and 2 others — 2020

The claimant was employed as a Revenue Protection Inspector and had PTSD and depression. The tribunal found that the respondent knew of those disabilities. It found that many of the claimant's discrimination allegations were not made out because the treatment complained of either did not occur as alleged, was not because of disability or protected acts, or was explained by the claimant's refusal to provide occupational health information and refusal to attend a case review meeting.

The tribunal upheld one reasonable adjustment complaint. It found that requiring RPIs to be deployed in hotspots placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that the respondent took an all-or-nothing approach rather than considering reduced exposure to hotspots. The tribunal did not find that guaranteed dual checking or the other claimed adjustments were reasonable on the evidence.

The tribunal upheld the s15 discrimination arising from disability claim in relation to dismissal. It accepted that dismissal was because of the occupational health advice that confrontation could trigger a negative response linked to the claimant's disability. By the time of dismissal the claimant was engaging with the redeployment process, and the tribunal found it disproportionate not to discuss return to the substantive role, possible adjustments, risk assessment, or a fresh occupational health referral before dismissing.

The unfair dismissal claim was upheld because the respondent did not take reasonable steps at the dismissal stage to establish the current medical position or properly consult the claimant about a possible return to his substantive role. The wrongful dismissal claim was partially upheld because the contract did not give the respondent a right to pay in lieu of notice, so the claimant was entitled to the benefits and holiday accrual he would have had during the 11-week notice period.