In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed as a sales administrator from 10 August 2021 until he resigned on 25 January 2023. The respondent had already conceded that he was disabled within the meaning of s.6 EqA by reason of PTSD. The tribunal found that by the end of April 2022 the branch manager knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, of the PTSD, and it accepted that the claimant had been allowed regular breaks from his workstation to assist with concentration.

The claimant alleged disability-related harassment based on comments said to have been made by SO, DF and CC in September 2022. All three denied making the remarks. The tribunal noted that the claimant had complained at the time, but found his evidence about the alleged comments vague and regarded DF's denial as persuasive. It also treated the claimant's false account about receiving a final written warning as significantly undermining his credibility. On the balance of probabilities, it was not satisfied that the comments were made, so the harassment claim was dismissed.

For the s.15 claim, the claimant relied on suspension on 11 November 2022, an invitation to a disciplinary meeting, an alleged final written warning, and constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that LF suspended the claimant because of his behaviour during the canteen meeting, not because of the breaks associated with PTSD. It also found that the disciplinary letter related to performance and conduct issues such as personal errands, phone calls, and absence from post, rather than the taking of breaks itself. The tribunal further found that no final written warning had ever been issued. Because the harassment claim failed and the other alleged treatment was not shown to be because of something arising in consequence of disability, the constructive dismissal aspect also failed. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.