Mr Hama Marange v Next Home Ltd and 1 other — 2024

The claimant was recruited as a property manager and began work on 20 February 2023. The tribunal found the respondents knew of his coccydynia before employment started, but were not aware of his dyslexia until 21 February 2023, when it became aware of that condition during a telephone call from Access to Work, and then through later Access to Work material in early March 2023. The claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages was withdrawn.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's dismissal on 20 April 2023 was unfavourable treatment, but it found that the decision was not made because of the consequences of his disability. The tribunal found that the respondents' concerns were that he was not opening emails and that his skills and experience, as presented in his CV, did not match performance in the role. It also found that the respondents had not criticised him for working more slowly or taking breaks, and that they allowed him to take breaks and walks during the day.

The tribunal further held that, even if the dismissal had been because of something arising in consequence of disability, it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It relied on the size of the business, the importance of the property manager role to a six-person operation, and the need to maintain an efficient service to clients and tenants. It therefore dismissed the discrimination arising from disability claim.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the alleged PCP of requiring the claimant to use the existing office equipment was not made out because the respondents did not require him to use a standard chair or non-adjustable desk. It found that an adjustable ergonomic chair, other chairs, a sofa and a standing desk were available, and that the claimant chose not to use them because he wanted the specific equipment recommended by Access to Work. The tribunal also found that the respondents had taken reasonable steps from the outset and after becoming aware of dyslexia, including colour-coding, speech-to-text facilities, iPhone and WhatsApp use, headsets and time for breaks.

The tribunal then considered the auxiliary aids issue under section 20(5). It accepted that the specific items in the Access to Work report were not supplied, but found that adequate alternatives were already available and that it was not reasonable to expect the respondents to purchase the listed items, even though the report valued them at £6,760.37. The tribunal dismissed the section 20(3) and section 20(5) claims, and made no monetary award.