Mr N Parsons, the claimant’s partner. For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal heard a disability discrimination claim arising from the claimant's dismissal with effect from 15 June 2018. Disability was conceded and identified as primary reading epilepsy. The tribunal found that the claimant's stress and depressive symptoms were not caused by that condition, although stress could intensify his epilepsy symptoms, and it found that the respondent had actual knowledge of disability by late September 2016 but did not have reason to know of any substantial workplace disadvantage until later in the chronology.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's sickness absence arose from stress and depressive symptoms and not from his disability. It rejected the proposition that the dismissal was because of sickness absence arising in consequence of primary reading epilepsy. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's legitimate aim was efficient absence management and, even if the section 15 route had been engaged, it held that dismissal after about 10 months' absence, following occupational health input and a prolonged attempt to resolve return-to-work barriers, was a proportionate response.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal considered the pleaded PCPs concerning reading, typing, customer guides, paperwork time, emails, performance management, open caseloads, training, wrap time, whiteboards and disability-related sickness absence. It found that some of the alleged PCPs were not made out as pleaded, that others did not create a substantial disadvantage beyond the momentary effects of reading-triggered seizures, and that the claimant's work performance had in fact been good. It held that the respondent had already put together a package of adjustments, including a phased return, work conditioning, limiting demand areas, uninterrupted paperwork time, additional and flexible breaks, support from a lead adviser, weekly reviews and access-to-work involvement, so there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments.

On harassment, the tribunal applied section 26 EqA 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal and Grant v HM Land Registry. It found that the meeting with Imran Arif on 18 October 2017, the occupational-health telephone call on 31 October 2017, and the 6 December 2017 occupational-health consultation did not amount to harassment. The tribunal found that some remarks, including Dr Cook's dyslexia analogy, were inappropriate and later criticised in the grievance process, but it concluded that the conduct did not meet the statutory threshold and was not reasonably capable of having the proscribed effect in the circumstances found.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance of 5 April 2018 was a protected act, but it found that the later classification of the matter as gross misconduct and the dismissal decision were not because of that grievance. The disciplinary process had already been underway, the respondent had already warned that dismissal was a possible outcome, and the tribunal found that the grievance did not divert the course that had already been set. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.