Mr J Sidhu v The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

Mr J Sidhu brought disability discrimination complaints arising from his return to work after a long absence following a 2018 cycling accident and later knee surgery. The tribunal accepted that his left lower limb injury and his hand injury were disabilities within s.6 Equality Act 2010, and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known about both. The claimant's case narrowed at the hearing to two alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments: that he should work only on Level 1 of the NCCC out-patients department, and that he should be able to alternate between sitting and standing and take breaks when his hands or leg became tired.

The tribunal found that the respondent applied a PCP requiring the claimant to attend work and perform his normal healthcare assistant duties, and that this put him at a substantial disadvantage. It rejected the claimant's evidence that there had been a binding agreement for him to work only on Level 1, preferring the respondent's witnesses and finding that Level 1 work was to be provided whenever possible, but not exclusively. It also found that the claimant's retraining and the respondent's service needs meant that some Level 2 work was expected. On the sitting and standing issue, the tribunal accepted that stools were available and that there was sufficient space for the claimant to sit when he wished; on the hand-grip issue, it found he was allowed to take breaks when necessary. Applying the reasonable adjustments duty and the approach discussed in Project Management Institute v Latif [2007 IRLR 579], it held that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments and dismissed the claim.

The tribunal also dismissed the harassment complaint under s.26 Equality Act 2010. It held that the claimant was required to work on Level 2 because of service needs and retraining after a lengthy absence, not for reasons related to disability, so the conduct relied on did not satisfy the statutory requirement that it be related to a protected characteristic. The tribunal further held that acts before 11 August 2021 were prima facie out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010, that the claimant had not provided an explanation for delay, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It therefore concluded that both the reasonable-adjustments and harassment claims were out of time and, in any event, dismissed them on the merits.