Miss S Gibson v Romac Logistics Ltd — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on 8 March 2023, with reasons sent on 3 August 2023. The tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's disability-related claims, including reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation. It refused the strike-out application. The judgment is interlocutory only and does not determine the merits of the underlying dismissal or discrimination allegations.

The tribunal set out the strike-out principles under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 and referred to Ezsias, Mbuisa, Anyanwu and Ahir. It emphasised the high threshold for striking out where central facts are disputed and that discrimination issues are generally better resolved after evidence. The claimant was employed from 13 September 2021 as a Human Resources Business Partner. The respondent accepted that she was disabled by reason of autism, anxiety and depression, and accepted that it knew of her autism when employment began.

On the reasonable adjustments claim concerning the absence of a disciplinary hearing and the lack of a companion, the tribunal accepted that dismissal without such a hearing can disadvantage any employee because it removes the opportunity to state their case and give mitigation. It held that there was more than little reasonable prospect of the claimant showing a greater disadvantage because of her disabilities, including difficulty explaining the effect of her disabilities on the conduct said to justify dismissal and difficulty putting her case in a stressful meeting. It also held there was more than little reasonable prospect that the proposed adjustment would be reasonable and that the respondent had the relevant knowledge, at least in relation to autism.

On the reasonable adjustments claim based on requiring office attendance full time, the tribunal accepted the claimant's case at its highest and noted her case that she had asked Mr Graham to allow home working because of anxiety and autism. It found there was no evidence either way as to whether a PCP requiring full-time office attendance was applied, or whether the respondent knew or should have known that it caused a substantial disadvantage. In those circumstances it refused strike out and also refused a deposit order for that claim. The reasons record no merits remedy or financial award.