Mr B Dangarembizi v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2022

The claimant was employed by the respondent and brought four joined claims concerning recruitment exercises, sickness absence, grievance handling, and alleged harassment. The respondent accepted that the claimant had anxiety and depression amounting to disability. The tribunal found that the respondent had knowledge of the disability before employment began, although detailed knowledge of how it affected interviews was first provided to relevant recruitment management on 19 September 2019.

The tribunal upheld part of the disability case relating to recruitment for role 1638997. It found that refusing to defer the interview by placing the claimant in the holding pool, when later tranches were available, was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability and was not justified. The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not moving the claimant into the holding pool for role 1638997 and by not doing the same for role 16232.

The remaining disability complaints were dismissed. These included direct disability discrimination about a Skype mock interview, other section 15 allegations, other reasonable adjustment allegations, indirect disability discrimination, and disability harassment relating to grievance communications and meeting notes. The tribunal found, depending on the allegation, that the treatment had not occurred as alleged, was not unfavourable, was not because of disability or something arising from disability, did not cause the pleaded disadvantage, or was justified.

The race-related complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's name had been misspelled in some administrative contexts, but found that the conduct was not related to race and that it was not reasonable for the misspellings found to have the statutory harassment effect. The indirect race discrimination claim failed because, although the claimant relied on disparity audit figures and the tribunal accepted a particular disadvantage, the respondent's requirement for interviews was found to be a proportionate means of achieving a fair and effective recruitment process.