Mr S Mutangadura v AO Retail Limited — 2021

Mr S Mutangadura applied on 15 August 2019 for an Inbound Sales Executive role with AO Retail Limited. In his email he said he had a disability primarily due to anxiety and asked that the respondent disregard periods out of work, periods out of sales work, and multiple jobs since 2015 when considering his application. Ms Burton asked for a CV, reviewed the material with Miss Alam-Taylor, and after internal HR advice the respondent decided on 30 September 2019 to proceed to a telephone interview. The tribunal accepted that there were delays in replying to the claimant's emails and voicemail between 21 August and 15 October 2019, but found those delays were explained by internal escalation, workload, and the fact that the application had not gone through the normal Avature process.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Although it accepted that he experienced anxiety in some situations, it held that the effect on normal day-to-day activities was not substantial. It noted that he had remained in full-time work for much of the relevant period, was socially active, and used public transport. The section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaints therefore failed at the threshold. In the alternative, the tribunal found that by 20 August 2019 the respondent knew only that the claimant said he had anxiety and that it had affected his work history; it did not know the facts constituting a disability within the meaning of the Act.

On the section 15 allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that the delayed responses and missed voicemail were because of his work history. It found that Ms Burton believed the matter was with Miss Alam-Taylor, and later simply overlooked the email and voicemail because of workload and the absence of an Avature prompt. It also found that the respondent had already decided to offer a telephone interview despite the claimant's work history, so the failure to reply sooner was not because of something arising from disability. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the respondent applied a PCP requiring a recent work history and sales experience, but held that it had taken the step sought by the claimant by offering a telephone interview, so there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments and no award.