Mr P Appasamy v Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2018

Mr Appasamy brought claims arising from his employment as a Band 4 Assistant Practitioner with Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust between 23 January and 25 July 2017. The tribunal recorded that the claims before it were harassment on grounds of race and sex, indirect religious discrimination, and disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments. It stated expressly that this was not an unfair dismissal claim, and dismissed all of the claimant's complaints.

On the harassment complaints, the tribunal found that the 10 March 2017 conversation about whether the claimant was gay was initiated by Ms Payne but was not related to sex, and in any event did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment; that complaint was also out of time. It rejected the alleged 17 March incident, found the 14 April leaking-pen comment occurred but did not amount to harassment and was not related to sex in context, and rejected the alleged race harassment incidents on 23 April. It also found that words used by Ms Payne on 23 April were directed to her boyfriend rather than the claimant, and that the alleged 31 May question about whether the claimant had a girlfriend did not occur.

The indirect religion or belief claim concerned the respondent's rota system and the claimant's assertion that he was unable to pray three times a day or attend his Temple on Sundays. The tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a rota system, but found that the claimant had not specifically requested time off for religious reasons apart from 14 April 2017, which had been accommodated. It found he could have used breaks to pray or practise spirituality and meditation, had only been required to work two Sunday mornings, and could have attended Temple on Friday morning or requested Sunday morning off.

The disability claim concerned alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments for Diabetes and Psoriatic Arthritis by requiring work through the day without specific protected break times. The tribunal found the respondent was made aware of the claimant's Diabetes in April 2017, most likely when he said he was managing it well, and that he did not raise a need for reasonable adjustments. It found he had sufficient breaks to eat and take medication and could request additional breaks at the start of shifts. It also found no evidence that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of Psoriatic Arthritis or a related likely substantial disadvantage.

The respondent applied for costs of £2,200 following the claimant's non-attendance on 18 July 2019. The tribunal refused the costs application, finding that the relevant postponement or adjournment provisions were not applicable and that the claimant's failure to attend because of ill-health did not amount to unreasonable conduct. No claimant remedy was awarded because all substantive complaints were dismissed.