Mr M Connorton v PD Ports Limited — 2022

The claimant brought a single remaining claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010, alleging that the respondent treated him unfavourably by dismissing him because of something arising in consequence of his disability. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of his physical impairments and held that the respondent knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of that disability, relying on the long history of welfare reviews, occupational health involvement, and the repeated acknowledgments in the disciplinary process that his medical condition was not disputed.

The factual dispute centred on the claimant's attendance at his Hapkido class after a change to Zomorph on 7 February 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent became concerned because the claimant had told occupational health on 11 February that his pain and mobility problems continued and that he was not driving, while surveillance evidence showed him driving to and participating in the class on 9, 11, 16, 18 and 23 February. At the investigation and disciplinary meetings the claimant gave incomplete and inconsistent answers about whether he had attended the class before 16 February, and the tribunal did not accept that his inability to answer was caused by confusion or memory loss from the medication.

Applying the approach in Pnaiser, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal and the failed appeal was the claimant's lack of candour and frankness throughout the disciplinary process, and the respondent's consequent view that trust and confidence had been irreparably damaged. It found that the claimant's dismissal was unfavourable treatment, but not treatment because of something arising in consequence of his disability. The complaint under section 15 was therefore dismissed.