Mr M Shepherd (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, Mr Michael Fuller, worked for ACASA Limited from 15 August 2016 at Place Court and later transferred to Apex Prime Care Limited. The tribunal found that he had anxiety and depression that amounted to a disability throughout his employment, and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known about it. It also found that the respondent's actions were generally driven by safeguarding, staffing, confidentiality and grievance-handling concerns rather than by sex, sexual orientation or disability.

In relation to the July 2018 concern raised by a colleague, the tribunal found it was reasonable for Hazel Roberts to investigate a reported relationship issue and speak to other staff. It found that Mrs Roberts said the claimant was '50% of a man' because he drove an automatic car, but that this was an ill-judged joke and not harassment or direct discrimination; it did not find that she called him gay, and it found the fragrance comment was about a strong smell rather than sexual orientation. The tribunal also found that taking the investigation papers home overnight, the search-authority form, the desk move, the proposed change in the balance of duties, the care-plan template changes and the pay-review decision were not because of any protected characteristic.

The claimant's grievance letter of 8 April 2019, his 17 May 2019 email and his grievance meeting on 2 August 2019 were found to be protected disclosures because they raised confidentiality and data-protection concerns; the later appeal letter of 23 August 2019 and appeal hearing of 2 October 2019 were not protected disclosures. The claimant's protected acts were limited to the 2 August 2019 grievance meeting and the 2 October 2019 appeal hearing, when he complained that Mrs Roberts had said he was 'only 50% of a man' and had insinuated that he was gay. The tribunal found that the informal grievance was partially upheld only in relation to confidentiality issues, but that the delay in handling the grievance, the grievance outcomes, the appeal criticism of credibility, and the pay-related complaints were not because of protected acts or protected disclosures.

The tribunal rejected the reasonable adjustments claim. It accepted that the investigation process was capable of amounting to a PCP, but found that the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by reason of anxiety/depression and, in any event, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the particular disadvantage relied on. Stepping back, the tribunal said some aspects of the claimant's treatment were unsatisfactory or inappropriate, but that the overall picture did not support unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment or a failure to make reasonable adjustments. All claims were dismissed and the remedy hearing was vacated.