Case 2500246/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Russell Pearson v Department for Work and Pensions — 2018
- Case reference
- 2500246/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Members
- Panel members
- Stuart Moules, Steve Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Russell Pearson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant was disabled by psoriatic arthritis and depression, and that the requirement to pass the Line Manager Assessment with three consecutive 'standard met' assessments put him at a substantial disadvantage. The stress of the process aggravated his symptoms, including pain, fatigue, impaired concentration, memory difficulties and 'brain fog', increasing his risk of failing the LMA and of dismissal. By October 2018 the Respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disadvantage.
The reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded only in relation to the LMA. The tribunal found that it would have been reasonable before the fourth LMA attempt to extend the process by stopping the clock when the Claimant was affected by brain fog and allowing him to discuss the LMA process with colleagues, and that by 16 November 2018 it would have been reasonable to deem him to have passed based on his earlier four consecutive passes. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that this would undermine competence standards, noting that additional checks or supervision could have been used.
The other reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the Respondent had addressed parking issues when raised, that taxis were available, that home working or permanent simple tasks were not reasonable adjustments in the circumstances, and that the equality move complaint was not made out because the Claimant could perform the case manager role if the LMA process was adjusted. The grievance-related reasonable adjustments complaint was also dismissed.
The harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal did not find that the November 2018 'chariots' allegations occurred, found that any earlier use of similar phrases was not unwanted conduct with the statutory purpose or effect, and declined to extend time for historic complaints. The Warbreck House complaint was also out of time and not extended, and the grievance-delay complaint failed because the delay found was not related to disability.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded only in relation to the LMA issue: by October 2018 it would have been reasonable to extend or stop the clock on the LMA process and permit discussion with colleagues about the process, and by 16 November 2018 it would have been reasonable to deem the Claimant to have passed based on previous results. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Other failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed, including parking and lifts, alternative work, equality move, and grievance-related reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability complaints concerning 'chariots/chariots of fire', Warbreck House, and grievance handling were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Remaining harassment related to disability complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal, including the parking and benefits/CSIB matters identified by the tribunal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed upon withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Fareham College Corporation v Walters
- Department of Work and Pensions v Alam
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary
- Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.