Case 2302974/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Modupe v London Fire Commissioner — 2017
- Case reference
- 2302974/2017
- Decision date
- 6 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Niamh Murphy, Penelope Barratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Modupe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a firefighter who had shoulder and jaw impairments following a road traffic accident at work. The tribunal found that he was disabled at all material times and that the respondent ought reasonably to have known this. It found that both impairments had more than minor or trivial effects on normal day-to-day activities, including aspects of personal care, social activity, communication, driving and participation in professional life.
The direct race and disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been treated less favourably because of race or disability in relation to light duties, redeployment, phased return, or being kept from work despite being fit for light duties. It accepted that there were matters capable of raising the possibility of discrimination, but found non-discriminatory reasons for the treatment complained of.
The disability harassment complaints succeeded in two respects. The tribunal found that SM Scrivener's inadvertently recorded answerphone conversation related to the claimant's sickness absence and sick pay, which were linked to disability, and created an offensive environment. It also found that SM Scrivener's comment to Mr Elcock that the claimant was bringing the brigade to its knees related to disability and created a proscribed environment. Harassment related to race and the other disability harassment allegations were dismissed.
The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded in relation to the respondent's policy or practice limiting light duties to about six months. The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to stop light duties and take sick leave put him at a substantial disadvantage, and that it would have been reasonable to allow him to remain on light duties while the capability process continued. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for that complaint. The victimisation complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found the treatment was not because of the claimant's protected act.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was dismissed; the tribunal found the relevant conduct did not relate to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability succeeded only in respect of SM Scrivener's answerphone message on 3 August 2017 and his comment to Mr Elcock that the claimant was bringing the brigade to its knees; the remaining harassment allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by giving evidence for FF Sappleton, but found no prima facie case and in any event found the treatment complained of was not because of that protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded only in respect of allowing the claimant to remain on light duties beyond May 2017; the other reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
27 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Fathers v Pets at Home Ltd
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Owen v Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd
- Morse v Wiltshire County Council
- A Ltd v Z
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council
- Abertawe University Local Health Board v Morgan
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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.