Ms J May, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2023

Mr Paul Withers was employed by Halfords Autocentres Ltd as an MOT tester and had cerebral palsy, which the respondent accepted amounted to a disability. After his condition worsened, he experienced disability-related absences and work restrictions. The tribunal found that the respondent reached its absence trigger points but did not issue a letter of concern in 2020; instead it issued a Record of Improvement on 14 January 2021, which Mr Withers understood as a de facto first step towards discipline. The tribunal also found that the adjustments identified in risk assessments were not implemented consistently or promptly, including the provision of a suitable chair and the practical blocking of diary slots.

The tribunal accepted that many of the earlier acts fell outside the ordinary three-month time limit, but extended time as just and equitable because the complaints were bound up with a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments. On the merits, the section 15 claim succeeded in relation to the Record of Improvement and the delay or failure to follow the risk assessments dated 12 November 2020, 27 May 2021 and early August 2021. The section 20 reasonable adjustments claim also succeeded because the respondent adopted relevant policies and practices about attendance and MOT work without taking reasonable steps in time to avoid the substantial disadvantages caused by Mr Withers's disability.

The tribunal rejected the claim that the disciplinary action over the missed wheel bolt was discriminatory, finding that the respondent had a legitimate and proportionate reason for issuing a final written warning given the safety implications. The harassment claim failed: Paul Senior's remark at the grievance meeting was found to be insensitive, but not conduct that violated dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment within section 26. The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found no link between any protected act and the detriments alleged, and the discriminatory constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found that Mr Withers resigned after obtaining better local employment, rather than in response to discriminatory conduct. The judgment recorded liability findings only and did not set out any monetary award.