Case 2503602/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Courtney v Macdonald Hotels — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503602/2019
- Decision date
- 16 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Panel members
- Ms D Newey, Mr S Wykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Courtney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Courtney was employed by Macdonald Hotels from December 2017 and became General Manager at Linden Hall in June 2018. He had a disability comprising anxiety, stress and depression. The judgment records that his ordinary unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed on withdrawal at a preliminary hearing because he did not have two years' service, so the final hearing concerned the three disability discrimination claims only.
The tribunal found that Macdonald had performance concerns about Linden Hall before it knew that Mr Courtney was disabled. After the 4 April 2019 meeting, Mr Truffelli had decided to dismiss him for performance reasons. The tribunal found that Mr Truffelli did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that Mr Courtney was disabled at that point. It held that actual knowledge arose no earlier than 20 May 2019, when Mr Courtney texted about chronic anxiety headaches, but that this came after the decision to dismiss had already been made.
The direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 therefore failed because the dismissal was not because of disability. The section 15 claim also failed. The tribunal found that Macdonald had constructive knowledge of disability by 3 May 2019 at the latest, when Mr Courtney first went off sick with stress and anxiety, but it held that the unfavourable treatment was not because of sickness absence or the risk of further absence. The operative reason for dismissal was underperformance, and the tribunal did not need to consider justification.
The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 failed because the tribunal rejected most of the proposed PCPs as not properly identified or not applicable on the facts. It held that the only arguable PCP, the requirement to perform all aspects of the General Manager role, was not a valid PCP for the purposes of the claim, and in any event reducing core duties such as budgeting and weekly management calls would not have been a reasonable adjustment. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the decision to dismiss had been made after the 4 April 2019 performance meeting, before Macdonald knew Mr Courtney was disabled, and that the dismissal was because of performance rather than disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found Macdonald had constructive knowledge of disability by 3 May 2019 at the latest, and actual knowledge by 20 May 2019, but held that the operative reason for dismissal was underperformance, not sickness absence or anticipated further absence. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected most suggested PCPs as not valid PCPs or not applicable on the facts, and held that the remaining proposed adjustments were not reasonable in the circumstances. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice
- Secretary of State for Justice v Dunn
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Griffiths v SSWP
- Nottingham City Transport v Harvey
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.