in person For the v Mr M Foster (solicitor) — 2021

The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 EqA 2010 and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known this from January 2012, relying on the history of stress-related absence, occupational health material, and later GP evidence. It also addressed limitation under section 123 EqA 2010, finding that some earlier allegations were out of time but that later procedural matters linked to the May 2017 bullying and harassment complaint formed part of a continuing sequence, with some earlier issues extended where just and equitable.

The direct discrimination claim under section 13 failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's own emails and diary-style notes often reflected his perception of events rather than proof of discriminatory treatment, that the comparator case was weak, and that many of the disputed incidents were either not proved or were ordinary management responses in a busy depot. The harassment claim under section 26 also failed because the tribunal did not find the required unwanted conduct related to disability with the necessary effect, and the victimisation claim under section 27 failed because the May 2017 bullying and harassment complaint was not treated as a protected act for that purpose; the later tribunal proceedings were protected acts, but the alleged detriments were not found to have followed because of them.

The section 15 claim failed notwithstanding the tribunal's acceptance that the claimant's stress-related absence from January 2018 was something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal found that Mr Mellor's attempts to progress the conduct matter, Mr Kelly's sickness-management meetings, and the use of the respondent's SOSR process were part of a legitimate effort to resolve a long-running absence and to achieve the respondent's operational aim of maintaining its postal service, and were proportionate in the circumstances.

The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded only in part. The tribunal accepted that the respondent should have removed the two-year serious warning and should have reviewed Ms Nevins' investigation, and it found that those failures were the main barriers to the claimant returning to work. Other proposed adjustments were rejected or found to have been met, including efforts to find suitable duties, a return to Manchester East, and OH referrals. Liability was decided only at this stage; the case was listed for a separate one-day remedy hearing and no monetary award was made in this judgment.