Mrs Pizika First v Unipart Group — 2026

The Tribunal dismissed all claims as not well founded and/or out of time. It recorded concern about deficiencies in the respondent's workplace-accident reporting and the management of events on 20 and 21 February 2023, but found that those matters did not establish the pleaded claims. The respondent accepted that the claimant's combined physical impairments amounted to a disability. The Tribunal found that she experienced depression and anxiety with substantial effects between approximately April or May and November or December 2022, but that the condition was not present as an impairment on her return to work and had not been shown then to be long-term or likely to recur.

The alleged age-related comment by Mr Harris on 17 July 2023 was not proved. The Tribunal relied on the delay in reporting it, changes in the claimant's accounts, the absence of contemporaneous evidence and its assessment of Mr Harris's evidence. It also rejected the direct disability discrimination allegation against Mr Stapleton, finding that the alleged instruction to move totes using an elbow or brush was not proved and that, even if suggested, disability had not been established as the reason for it.

The disability-related harassment allegations were dismissed. The April 2022 rota did not result in the claimant working in Batch Put Away; the requested medical appointments were ultimately approved; and the alleged comment comparing the claimant with broken furniture and the alleged mocking of her shoulder were not proved. The Tribunal alternatively found that relevant allegations were not related to disability or did not reasonably have the purpose or effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

The reasonable-adjustments claims also failed. The Tribunal found that training was provided according to the work employees performed, rather than withheld because of long-term absence, and the claimant received training for her temporary inbound-shipment duties. Her Resource Planning Assistant application failed at a spreadsheet and data-analysis assessment, while BlueYonder training was only one of several missing requirements identified for the Stock Clerk role; the specified training was not shown to offer a prospect of securing either role. The emotional-support claim failed because the alleged mental impairment was not a disability at the relevant time, the respondent lacked the required knowledge, and no applicable PCP, substantial disadvantage or identifiable effective adjustment was established.

For race-related harassment, the Tribunal accepted that translation was difficult at points during the 27 July 2023 welfare meeting, including because Ms Goulding attended remotely, but found that the difficulties were not related to race and did not have the required purpose or effect. The 26 January 2024 letter recommended that the claimant answer in English if she could and permitted translation when needed; it did not require her to speak English or prohibit Latvian. No instruction to speak English was given at the 17 July 2024 meeting. The Tribunal extended time for these allegations but dismissed them on their merits.