Mr M Harris v Colchester United FC Football in the Community — 2021

The tribunal found that Mr Harris was an employee despite the written zero-hours contract, relying on the regular hours, line management, email account, uniform, fixed pay rate and the way the role operated in practice. It also found that he was disabled by reason of a mental health condition at all material times, and that the respondent knew this from his email of 18 January 2019. However, it accepted that he had expressly said no adjustments were needed, and rejected the reasonable adjustments complaint.

The successful victimisation claim turned on the meeting of 20 December 2018, when Mr Harris attended with Person A at her grievance meeting about repayment of a £1,285 course fee and her complaints about how she had been treated, including sex-related concerns. The tribunal found that Mr Haines' attitude to Mr Harris changed after that meeting, that he told Mr Harris it looked like he was siding with Person A against him, and that the later decision to end Mr Harris' work on 5 April 2019 was causally linked to that protected act. The tribunal rejected the stated explanation that the traineeship role was no longer viable as the real reason for dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the remaining discrimination allegations, finding no proved disability-based detriment in the way projects were allocated or in the pressures placed on the traineeship programme. It also rejected the complaint that Mr Cowling's handling of the grievance appeal, or the later exchange outside the building, amounted to victimisation caused by a protected act. On the whistleblowing claim under s.103A ERA 1996, it held that the alleged disclosures about Persons B, A, D and C were either not pleaded, not protected disclosures, or not the reason for dismissal. The case was relisted for a remedy hearing, so no compensation was determined in this judgment.