Mr P Broome v Sally-Ann Gosling t/a Riding Farm Equestrian Centre Heard — 2021

The Tribunal found that Mr P Broome had autistic spectrum condition and that it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his day-to-day activities, so he was disabled for Equality Act purposes. It preferred the Respondent's evidence that she was not told he was autistic until 30 May 2019, but held that the email of 11 May 2019 saying he now had "support" was enough to give the Respondent constructive knowledge from that date and to make further enquiry reasonable.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the Tribunal accepted that the Respondent applied a number of PCPs, but found that only the policy of direct contact with the employee put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage in the circumstances found. It held that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the Respondent to liaise with the Claimant's mother during his sickness absence after 11 May 2019, and to allow the mother to act as his advocate at the disciplinary meeting. The claim succeeded only to that limited extent; the other suggested adjustments were rejected.

The section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that criticism, the disciplinary procedure and the report to the police were unfavourable treatment, and that those steps arose from the Claimant's conduct and behaviour, which in turn arose in consequence of his disability. It nevertheless held that the Respondent acted for legitimate aims, including harmonious workplace relations, proper standards of conduct and the protection of staff, and that the treatment was proportionate.

The harassment claim was also dismissed because the Tribunal found the conduct related to the Claimant's behaviour and not to disability within the meaning of the harassment provisions. The separate holiday pay claim was settled by consent, and the Respondent was ordered to pay £1,355.20. The Tribunal noted that a further hearing would be listed to determine remedy on the successful reasonable adjustments claim if the parties could not agree it first, and it did not go on to consider the indirect discrimination issue because of its findings on knowledge.