JUSTIN LA HOOD v PricewaterhouseCoopers — 2022

The Claimant presented his claim on 21 June 2020 and said it centred on his forced retirement from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. In this reserved preliminary judgment, the Tribunal recorded that his complaints of unfair dismissal, reinstatement, reputational damage and breach of contract had been withdrawn and were dismissed upon withdrawal. The Claimant's claims against Matthew Thorogood, Michael Bailey and Jonathan Howe were also dismissed upon withdrawal.

The only live issue before Employment Judge L Burge was the Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's associative direct discrimination complaint under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Claimant said he had worked closely with S, who had a neuro-diversity disability, had taken steps to make reasonable adjustments for S, and had been treated badly because of his association with S and his involvement in S's grievance process. The Respondent relied on Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and argued that the claim was really about support for disabled people generally rather than treatment because of S's disability.

Taking the Claimant's case at its highest, the Tribunal held that it could not conclude that the associative direct discrimination complaint had no or little prospect of success. The judge said the case was not on all fours with Lee or Coleman and that it would not be just or equitable to determine on a short preliminary hearing whether the alleged treatment was because of S's protected characteristic, because of more general support for disabled people, or had nothing to do with disability. The Respondent's strike-out application therefore failed.

The Tribunal also considered whether a deposit order under Rule 39 should be made, having made enquiries into the Claimant's ability to pay. It declined to do so, concluding that the matter should be decided at a full merits hearing after evidence had been heard and tested.