Case 2400885/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Legname v Environment Agency — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400885/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms S A Humphreys, Ms C A Titherington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Legname
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant had Generalised Anxiety Disorder and was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times in June and September 2021. It found that the condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including concentration, social situations, sleep, and at certain times the ability to work. The respondent had knowledge of the disability, including through Occupational Health reports and the employee disability passport process.
The agreed PCP was that employees were required to be fit and capable to attend work and/or perform the Senior Environmental Crime Officer role in the NES team. The Tribunal found that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because working in that team aggravated his Generalised Anxiety Disorder and he became unable to work from 19 May 2021 until taking up a Sustainable Places role in September 2021.
The Tribunal found that moving the claimant to a Sustainable Places role was a reasonable adjustment which could and should have been made, whether in June 2021 or September 2021. It noted that the role was at the same grade, the claimant had previously worked successfully in that team, Occupational Health had recommended a move, and the respondent was a large organisation. The Tribunal also found the claim was in time, treating the refusals on 2 June 2021 and 2 September 2021 as a course of conduct and applying the ACAS early conciliation stop-the-clock provisions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010 was upheld. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing and no monetary award was made in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of Disability (2011)
- EHRC Employment Code
- paragraph 2(1) Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Limited
- All Answers Limited v W
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Limited
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark
- Archibald v Fife Council
- Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Limited
- Robertson v Bexley Heath Community Centre
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts PLC
- section 14B Equality Act 2010
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.