Mr C. Meya v Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd — 2020

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the Claimant had two separate periods of employment with the Respondent. His employment transferred to Betfred on 28 November 2016 and he later rejoined the Respondent on 14 May 2017, so the later period was too short to satisfy the two-year qualifying period. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

On the discrimination claims, the Tribunal accepted that the Claimant was disabled and found that the incident on 2 February 2018 with Ms Fatou Camara was direct disability discrimination. It found that Ms Camara called him 'dumb, useless and a sick man', said she did not know why the company was employing him, and pointed at his leg. The Tribunal rejected the other direct discrimination allegations based on race and age, including the allegation that Mr Johnson accused the Claimant of stealing, the alleged motive that he did not fit a younger image, and the suggestion that the suspension and dismissal were taken for discriminatory reasons. It found the suspension and dismissal were linked to the investigation into late losing bets and the Claimant's admissions that he had processed bets to cover cash differences.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim under s.15 EqA that the suspension and dismissal were unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. In the reasonable adjustments claim, it found that the chair/workstation allegation failed, that the promotional material duty had been removed when access was difficult, and that moving the Claimant to another shop would not have been reasonable because he had chosen to work at City Road. The claim succeeded only in relation to the old-fashioned slot machines, because the Claimant had to kneel and remove his calliper to empty them and the Tribunal found it would have been reasonable to assign that task to another employee.

The Tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the out-of-time disability complaints about Ms Camara and the slot machines. It also found that stopping the Claimant's pay after he failed to attend the second investigatory meeting was an unlawful deduction from wages because the meeting invitation was sent by text and was not effectively received in time, and the Respondent did not prove any contractual or customary entitlement to withhold pay. The unlawful deduction claim succeeded in principle, with quantum to be determined at the listed remedy hearing.