Mr P Bryant v European Braking Systems Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Mr P Bryant, was employed by European Braking Systems Ltd from 1 August 2013 until 28 March 2020. The tribunal accepted that he had rheumatoid arthritis and that it amounted to a disability at the relevant time. The hearing determined liability only. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s later unfair dismissal claim was being dealt with separately and that it was not making findings about the dismissal or the later disciplinary process beyond what was necessary for the issues in this case.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent’s office seating arrangements were a provision, criterion or practice. It accepted the claimant’s evidence that sitting in a draught exacerbated his rheumatoid arthritis, found that the respondent was aware of the disability and the likely disadvantage by 8 November 2019, and concluded that moving him back to his previous seat was a reasonable adjustment. The respondent did not make that adjustment during the period when the claimant was in work in December 2019, even though the move was later made in January 2020.

On harassment, the tribunal rejected the allegation that turning up the heating was unlawful harassment. It found that the heating had been increased because Mr Thornley thought it would assist the claimant, and although the claimant found it unwelcome, it was not reasonable for that conduct to have the required harassing effect. It did, however, find that Mr Thornley made the comment on 13 November 2019, "Come on lads, get your trunks on, it’s like a sauna in here", that the comment was related to disability, and that it had the effect of creating a humiliating environment for the claimant. The tribunal therefore upheld the harassment complaint only in relation to that comment.

On victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant’s emails of 7 and 8 November 2019 about the desk move and his rheumatoid arthritis were protected acts. It held that the conversation on 11 November 2019, in which an option of leaving employment was raised, was a detriment and that it was materially influenced by those emails. The tribunal rejected the complaints about suspension and the final written warning, finding that those steps were justified by the allegation and statements concerning derogatory comments made to Ms Fay, and were not taken because of the protected act. No remedy was determined in this judgment.