Mr M Downs v Pilgrims Food Masters UK Ltd — 2025

The tribunal accepted that the claimant, Mr M Downs, was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of OCD, PTSD and dissociative personality disorder. It also found that the claims had been presented outside the three-month time limit, but that it was just and equitable to extend time. The claims therefore proceeded to determination on the merits. The respondent’s refusal to extend company sick pay beyond the claimant’s 13-week entitlement in January 2023 was the central issue. The tribunal accepted that the respondent operated an absence management policy with a discretionary power to extend company sick pay in exceptional circumstances, and that the claimant had previously exhausted his entitlement during earlier disability-related absences.

The direct discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 failed. The tribunal found that the claimant had not identified reliable comparators showing materially similar circumstances, and it accepted the respondent’s evidence that the two instances it had identified where discretion was exercised were materially different. It found that the respondent was concerned with high sickness absence at the site and that, on the balance of probabilities, a hypothetical comparator who had exhausted sick pay for non-disability-related absences and then became absent again would have been treated in the same way. The tribunal therefore concluded that the refusal to extend sick pay was not because of disability.

The s.15 claim for discrimination arising from disability also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant’s disability-related absences were part of the context in which his company sick pay entitlement had been exhausted, but it found that the relevant unfavourable treatment arose because he was absent with Weil’s disease after using up his entitlement. In any event, it held that the respondent’s approach was justified as a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aims in operating the absence management policy, maintaining attendance, and controlling sickness absence. The tribunal also rejected the reasonable-adjustments claim under ss.20-21 EqA 2010. It accepted the relevant PCPs identified by the claimant, but held that it was not reasonable to require the respondent to discount all disability-related absences from the sick-pay calculation or to extend sick pay beyond the policy on the facts of this case. No financial award was made.