Mr P Ennis v DPD Group UK Limited — 2022

The claimant alleged that the respondent failed to take adequate measures to protect him and his clinically extremely vulnerable partner during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that he was subjected to detriment when he refused to attend work. The tribunal found that the respondent had taken preventative measures, including later start times, PPE, an exclusive van and parking space, CCTV monitoring, signage, and other steps, and that the Health and Safety Executive had considered the measures compliant.

On the section 44 ERA claims, the tribunal concluded that, viewed objectively, it was not reasonable for the claimant to consider there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger by virtue of his attendance at the workplace. It further found that the letters warning of possible disciplinary action followed the respondent's absence policy after the claimant did not categorise his absence, and that the claimant was unpaid because he took unpaid leave.

The disability discrimination by association claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not been treated less favourably than another employee would have been. It found that furlough or special paid leave was not available to the claimant on the basis advanced, that special leave was provided to employees who were themselves extremely clinically vulnerable, and that the claimant did not provide evidence of his partner's shielding status until late June 2020.

The harassment claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent acted in accordance with government guidance and its absence policy, and that the claimant could not sustain an argument that the respondent's actions were intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive within section 26 EqA.