Mr O Robinson v CFS Care Limited — 2022

The claimant accepted that he had a disability for Equality Act purposes. The respondent knew in early February 2020 that he had anxiety and depression, including from the health questionnaire and his discussion with EB, and the tribunal found that when he disclosed mental health difficulties and asked for support, the respondent was sympathetic and put support in place, including agreeing home-based working and some flexibility for counselling appointments.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s employment did not end by dismissal. At the remote meeting on 9 April 2020, the claimant said he was struggling to move from a consultant to an employee mindset, did not want the restrictions that came with employment, and preferred to return to a consultancy arrangement. The tribunal found it was agreed that his employment would end, with a week’s notice and handover, and that he later emailed saying he wanted to let the dust settle and avoid a knee-jerk decision. It rejected his evidence that LD and EB had dismissed him or that LD made the alleged remarks about mental health or disability presentation.

On the allegation of failure to provide supervision, the tribunal found there was no failure: EB held a new starter meeting in early February, LD held a supervision meeting on 13 February, and the claimant also had regular weekly meetings with LD and others about operational matters. The tribunal noted that the supervision complaint might have been out of time, but if so it was just and equitable to extend time because neither party was prejudiced and the issue arguably related to the whole employment period. All of the claimant’s Equality Act complaints therefore failed, and no remedy was awarded.