Mr Gray-Jones of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

Mr Ferns brought disability discrimination claims arising from his dismissal on 24 June 2019. The tribunal found that he was disabled at the material time by osteoarthritis and that the dispute turned on whether the respondent dismissed him because of sickness absence and/or an inability to be mobile, or instead because of an alleged dubious expenses claim. It also dealt with a separate complaint that the respondent had failed to provide written reasons for dismissal.

The s.15 claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was unfavourable treatment and found that the sickness absence and mobility issues relied on by the respondent arose in consequence of the claimant's disability. It did not accept that the respondent had established the alternative expenses explanation. In remedy, the tribunal limited financial loss to 1 September 2019, rejected the mitigation challenge for the initial unemployment period, and found no basis to reduce the loss on the footing that a fair and non-discriminatory dismissal would probably have occurred within that period. It awarded £2,743.88 for financial loss, £3,000 for injury to feelings, and interest on both heads, producing a total award of £6,631.86.

The reasonable-adjustment claim failed. The pleaded PCPs concerned medical appointments during working hours, sickness-absence triggers, and shortened hours during flare-ups. The tribunal concluded that the claim did not add anything to the case once the s.15 issue was determined and dismissed the reasonable-adjustment claim in its entirety. The separate claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal also failed because the tribunal found that the respondent did provide written reasons.

On remedy, the tribunal applied Vento and De Souza when assessing injury to feelings, finding the evidence of injury thin but sufficient for an award in the lower band. It declined any ACAS uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, holding that failings on both sides were of broadly equal weight. It also awarded statutory interest under the 1996 Regulations from the date of dismissal to the calculation date.