Mr M Bashir v Fothergill Engineered Fabrics Limited — 2021

Mr Bashir worked for Fothergill Engineered Fabrics Limited from 21 March 1987 and was found to be disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of inclusive body myopathy. He had moved into a store manager role in 2017, with a team leader designation retained in practice to preserve pay, and the tribunal noted that his condition had progressively affected his ability to do physical work. The tribunal also recorded a 2019 email from a health and safety officer referring to him as presenting a risk to himself and others, but it found that this did not reflect Fothergill's general view of him. The parking space and sign for his disability parking arrangement were delayed by roof works and then Covid-related disruption, and the tribunal found no evidence that this pointed to a pre-determined dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the Covid downturn created a genuine redundancy situation. It found that orders had fallen significantly, that the company needed to reduce staffing costs, and that the store manager role was one of the non-production roles considered for redundancy. Because Mr Bashir was the only employee in that role, the tribunal treated it as a pool of one. It found that he was warned, consulted on 22 June 2020, invited to further meetings on 25 June and 1 July 2020, given the opportunity to raise furlough and alternative work, and then given a right of appeal, which was heard on 16 July 2020 and rejected. The tribunal said the process was somewhat rushed and that it would have preferred furlough to continue until the redundancy process was completed, but it still concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

The direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that the decision was taken because the store manager role was redundant, not because of Mr Bashir's disability. It accepted that managers had held regular review meetings and had focused on adjustments rather than on removing him from work, and it rejected the suggestion that the January 2020 parking-space events showed an intention to dismiss him because of disability. The section 15 claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that his weakened muscles created an increased risk of accidents and that this arose from his disability, but it found that the unfavourable treatment of selecting him for redundancy and dismissing him was not because of that consequence of disability. The tribunal therefore dismissed all complaints and recorded no compensation award.