Mr A Parkin v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2023

The respondent conceded at the hearing that the claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia. The tribunal found that Mr Longman and Mr Pearson-Leach knew or ought reasonably to have known of the claimant's dyslexia when they managed him, but that Mr Clarke did not know of it when issuing the first written warning on 25 April 2019.

The direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant and a non-disabled comparator, Mr Howbrook, were both issued first written warnings after taking out the wrong driving test candidate; that the respondent did not refuse to act on the claimant's complaints of bullying; that Mr Clarke explained potential health and safety consequences rather than threatening the claimant's job; and that further occupational health advice was sought to clarify causation rather than to undermine the earlier report.

The harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that Mr Clarke did make the alleged comments on 8 August 2019 and that they were unwanted and related to disability, but not that they had the purpose or reasonable effect required by section 26. It also found that the respondent had not failed to implement the relevant recommendations in the way alleged, and that delays in implementing Access to Work adjustments arose from procurement and IT approval processes.

The victimisation complaint was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's request for a workplace assessment was a protected act, but found that Mr Clarke had not threatened him, that no detriment was established, and that the explanation of possible consequences was not because of the protected act. As all claims failed, no compensation was awarded.