Case 3200426/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Garrard v London Underground Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200426/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs B Saund, Ms S Harwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Garrard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Trains Manager employed by London Underground Ltd, had Type 1 diabetes and physical impairment to his left foot, both accepted as disabilities. His claims concerned the requirement to work at Edgware Road or Loughton rather than Upminster, which was closer to his home and involved less commuting difficulty. The tribunal found that the requirement to work at Edgware Road or Loughton was a PCP and that it placed him at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that a temporary move to Upminster in 2018 was an adjustment which avoided the disadvantage at that time. It accepted the respondent's evidence that a permanent move to Upminster, moving the claimant there on a one-over-establishment basis, or displacing another Trains Manager was not practicable given the absence of a vacancy, the established transfer process, staffing arrangements, industrial relations considerations and costs. The claimant remained at the top of the waiting list for Upminster.
The tribunal also considered the later Access to Work-funded taxi arrangement for travel to Loughton. It found that the respondent suggested and supported the application, that the taxi service enabled the claimant to commute without the relevant disadvantage, and that no further reasonable step had been shown. The reasonable adjustments complaint was therefore dismissed.
For the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that the medical case conferences in January and February 2020 were unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's inability to drive or walk significant distances, which arose from disability. However, it held that beginning the procedure to explore whether he could continue working, whether alternatives existed, or whether dismissal might arise was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including workforce management, business efficacy, maintaining service within budget, and health and safety. That claim was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the respondent applied a PCP requiring work at Edgware Road or Loughton and that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, but concluded the respondent had not breached the duty because the proposed permanent or over-establishment transfer to Upminster was not practicable, and taxi provision secured through Access to Work removed the commuting disadvantage from July 2020. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that requiring the claimant to attend medical case conferences in January and February 2020 was unfavourable treatment because of his inability to drive or walk significant distances, arising from disability, but held that it was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Archibald v Fife Council
- Tarbuck v Sainsburys Supermarkets
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme v Williams
- Hensman v Ministry of Defence
- Department of Work and Pensions v Boyers
- Chief Constable of West Midlands v Harrod
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.