Mr. A Teague v Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2017

Mr A Teague brought claims of direct disability discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal against HMRC. HMRC accepted that he was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded a long history of grievances, reasonable adjustment arrangements, a Workplace Adjustment Passport, Positive Action Pathway involvement, HRACC1 forms, a single point of contact arrangement, grievance investigations and an attendance management process before turning to the claims.

On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal held that HMRC did not treat the claimant less favourably because of disability. It found that HMRC had previously put significant support in place, including adjustments, grievance-related time, and steps to facilitate a return to work. The tribunal concluded that the disputed actions were driven by the claimant’s escalating communications, the need to manage a difficult relationship, and the handling of grievances and attendance, rather than by his mental health disability.

On victimisation, the tribunal examined the asserted protected acts individually. It held that some of them were protected acts, including the Mental Health Action Plan comments, the later grievances and emails that expressly linked complaints to the Equality Act 2010, the complaint to Internal Governance, the email to Michael Potter, and the tribunal claim itself. Other references to bullying, victimisation or harassment were found to be colloquial and not complaints to which the Equality Act potentially applied. Even where a protected act existed, the tribunal found no detriment caused by it and no significant influence on the respondent’s decisions.

The tribunal’s unfair dismissal analysis was that the reason for dismissal was capability arising from ill health. It accepted that the decision maker, Mr Oatley, dismissed because the claimant had been absent for a prolonged period, had not engaged with Occupational Health at the appropriate stage, had not taken up return-to-work options, and had not shown any realistic prospect of returning within a reasonable time. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the reasonable responses test, the tribunal held the dismissal fair.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s challenges to the appeal process and to the later use of the SPOC arrangement and the vexatious complaints policy. It found those were part of the respondent’s attempt to manage a complex case, keep communications workable, and progress the outstanding issues. The claim was dismissed in full and no tribunal monetary award was made.