Mr S Wright v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2021

The claimant had conceded physical disabilities consisting of arthritis and an annular tear in his lower back and arthritis in his knees. The tribunal found that he had depression from 15 October 2019, with more than minor or trivial effects on day-to-day activities, but those effects were not long-term at the relevant time and his mental impairment did not meet the statutory definition of disability.

On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal treated the alleged requirement to work a “red” job as referring to the Gear Box Bolts role being marked red for knees on the job mapping spreadsheet. It found no substantial disadvantage in 2017 and 2018, likely disadvantage before knee surgery in early 2019, and no substantial disadvantage after the claimant's summer 2019 return. It also found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of a relevant substantial disadvantage, and that the proposed steps, including a driving role, bagging role, Launch Team role, Door Line Repair role, or further occupational health role assessment, were not reasonable adjustments required in the circumstances. Any claim concerning VCATS or earlier roles was out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment. It found that the decision-maker was influenced to a more than negligible extent by the claimant's historical physical disability-related absences, but that those absences were not the main reason for dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant's asserted inability to work in Gear Box Bolts and his stress-related absence did not arise in consequence of a statutory disability in the relevant sense, and that the dismissal was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of maintaining productivity and satisfying customer expectations.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, namely the decision-maker's genuine belief that the claimant was deliberately manipulating and frustrating the respondent's processes. Although some aspects of the decision-maker's reasoning were flawed, the tribunal held that the belief was reasonably open to him, the investigation and appeal were within the reasonable range, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.