In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked for the London Borough of Greenwich from March 2018, moving from GLLaB work into an agency film-making role and then into a permanent communications post. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by ADHD, EUPD, OCD, bipolar disorder and severe anxiety/depression, and found that the respondent had actual and imputed knowledge of those conditions from repeated emails, applications and an occupational health report dated 31 December 2018.

The direct disability discrimination allegations about annual leave, overtime, remarks, late pay, mental health comments, rest breaks, mentor applications, property and appeal were dismissed. The tribunal found that most of the alleged incidents did not occur as pleaded, or were explained by non-discriminatory reasons such as the claimant's agency status, overtime authority rules, or technical or payroll error. It found that the later suspension, investigation, probation review and dismissal were prompted by allegations of sexual harassment made by Witness A and by the respondent's probation process, not by disability.

The section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant's case inverted the statutory causation analysis because he pleaded the adverse treatment as causing stress, anxiety or difficulty coping, rather than showing that the treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found no sufficient causal link between the pleaded 'something arising' and the treatment complained of.

The reasonable adjustments claim was upheld only in part. The tribunal found that PCP8, the practice of subjecting employees to disciplinary proceedings without adequate explanation, information and support, and PCP9, proceeding with disciplinary or end of probation hearings when the employee cannot attend and/or not keeping the employee updated, existed, put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and were not reasonably adjusted. It held that the respondent should have answered his questions, provided the correct probation policy and timetable, supplied the missing papers, and postponed the 3 June 2019 meeting or otherwise adjusted the process. The appeal process largely cured participation problems, but it did not undo the earlier failure to make adjustments.

The breach of contract, holiday pay and unpaid wages claims were dismissed. The grievance issue was treated as part of the appeal by agreement of the union representative, so no contractual breach was shown. The tribunal found no basis for extra holiday accrual on the disputed termination date, and the claimant did not prove a contractual entitlement to payment for 16.5 hours of TOIL on termination. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text.