Mr C Carus v Liverpool City Council — 2019

The claimant had been employed by Liverpool City Council since 1980 and was dismissed in July 2018 on capability grounds after about seven months' sickness absence for work-related stress. The tribunal found that he had taken on additional duties over a long period, was regarded as diligent and conscientious, and had not clearly communicated to the respondent that his issue was the overall amount of work rather than the grade or nature of the role.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had a mental impairment of work-related stress from 20 November 2017, and that it had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It found, however, that at the relevant times the effect had not lasted 12 months and was not likely to last 12 months, so the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the direct disability discrimination complaint would have failed in any event because the claimant had not shown facts from which less favourable treatment because of disability could be inferred. It also found that the reasonable adjustments complaint would have failed because the respondent was not applying the alleged PCP of requiring the Compliance Officer to take on a significant number of additional roles at the relevant time.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that capability was the reason for dismissal and a potentially fair reason. It found that the respondent followed its absence process, obtained and discussed medical evidence, kept in contact, held review meetings, warned the claimant that dismissal was possible, considered his long service and the impact of his absence, and acted within the band of reasonable responses when dismissing after the claimant said he did not want to return to work or discuss it further.