Mr M A Khan v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2022

The tribunal accepted that Mr Khan was disabled by asthma, keratoconus, anxiety and depression. It found the respondent knew of his asthma from the outset of employment and knew of anxiety and depression from 18 March 2022; it also thought it unlikely that managers were unaware that he had more serious eyesight difficulties. The case concerned allegations first at East Ham under Lukman Zabwala and later at Upton Park under Abdul Hannan.

Claims based on Mr Zabwala were dismissed as out of time. Early conciliation began on 19 August 2022, so the January 2022 screen comment and the March 2022 incidents fell outside the three-month limit, and the tribunal refused to extend time. In any event, it found the screen comment was not shown to have been made by Mr Zabwala. On 5 March 2022 it accepted that he refused to help with the float, was critical of the claimant, said he would fail probation and made remarks such as working with a child and that the claimant would be dismissed, but it held those comments were performance-related rather than disability-related and that the one-off refusal to assist was too trivial to amount to harassment.

For Mr Hannan, the tribunal relied heavily on contemporaneous WhatsApp messages, which it said showed a generally friendly and accommodating relationship. It did not accept that he was aggressive, swore at the claimant, hit him, shouted at him, looked angrily at him, got colleagues to laugh at him, or told him he was a liability and should stay at home. It accepted only that there may have been references to other employees' work, use of the phrase bum on a till, and some touching of an arm or back, but found that this was not proved as alleged and did not amount to harassment, direct discrimination or victimisation. The tribunal also accepted the claimant's March 2022 grievance was a protected act, but found no causal link between that grievance and the later treatment complained of.

The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found the reduction in hours from 15 to 4 per week was agreed rather than imposed and was not shown to be because of poor performance arising from disability. The reasonable adjustments claim also failed: the claimant did not prove that working on the shop floor, counting float money, or the medical-appointment policy placed him at a substantial disadvantage, and the evidence showed that requests to work on tills and to take time off were often accommodated. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.