Case 2500586/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Patrick Ngugi v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500586/2020
- Decision date
- 17 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr W Roberts, Mrs P Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Patrick Ngugi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Black African employee who was accepted to be disabled by reason of dyslexia and PTSD throughout the relevant period and depression from June 2018, worked as a tax investigator until dismissal on capability grounds due to unsatisfactory attendance. He brought complaints of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, and discrimination arising from disability.
On the race complaints, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved facts from which it could infer a discriminatory reason for the treatment alleged. It rejected or found unsubstantiated allegations about exclusion, scrutiny of work, criticism, training, comments by colleagues and managers, and other workplace incidents. Where incidents had occurred, including a colleague using offensive language, the tribunal found they were not related to race.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal considered allegations concerning warnings for data security breaches, performance feedback, a performance improvement plan, implementation of occupational health recommendations, and dismissal. It found either that the alleged treatment was not unfavourable, that the claimant had not shown the treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability, or that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For dismissal, the tribunal accepted that absence arose from disability and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment, but found it proportionate given the length of absence, lack of return date, and impact on the team.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent relied on capability due to long-term absence. The claimant had been absent for almost six months, could not indicate when he might return, and did not identify treatment or a role change that would enable a foreseeable return. The tribunal found the respondent had consulted with him, considered the medical position and alternatives, and acted reasonably in dismissing him.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found capability due to long-term absence was a potentially fair reason and that the respondent followed a fair procedure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment allegations under section 26 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability allegations under section 15 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13 direct discrimination
- Equality Act 2010 s.15 discrimination arising from disability
- Equality Act 2010 s.26 harassment
- Equality Act 2010 s.136 burden of proof
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Land Registry v Grant
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnasier v NHS England
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Limited
- BS v Dundee City Council
- East Lindsay District Council v Daubney
- HJ Heinz Company Limited v Kenrick
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.