Case 2401147/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jewitt v Health & Safety Executive (Inspector Julian Charles Tuvey) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401147/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- Ms M Conlon, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jewitt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for capability, namely poor performance, which was a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant was incapable of maintaining the required standard, had investigated the position over a lengthy period, had given repeated warnings and opportunities to improve, and had followed a fair procedure overall. Although the claimant was not given Mr Dawson’s report before the stage 3 meeting, the tribunal found that defect was not fatal and was remedied on appeal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
On the disability discrimination claims, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and had knowledge of that disability. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that failures to change his line manager, the handling of performance management, and the dismissal itself amounted to direct disability discrimination. It found no sufficient evidence of less favourable treatment because of disability, and no adequate comparator evidence. It also rejected the claimant’s contention that his relationship with Mr Dawson had broken down in the way alleged.
The tribunal also dismissed the reasonable adjustments and section 15 claims. Although it accepted that maintaining line management and performance management were PCPs, it found the claimant had not shown that those PCPs placed him at a substantial disadvantage because of his disability, or that the suggested adjustment of changing line manager was made out on the evidence. It further found that the claimant had not produced evidence establishing that his poor performance arose in consequence of his depression. In any event, the tribunal held that maintaining adequate performance standards and using performance management, including dismissal after a lengthy process, was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Griffiths v DWP
- Pnaiser v NHS England and Coventry City Council
- City of York Council v Grosset
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.