In person For the v Respondent — 2023

At this preliminary hearing the tribunal held that the claimant was a person to whom s.6 Equality Act 2010 applied and that it had jurisdiction to hear disability discrimination claims. It then struck out both harassment claims under s.26 Equality Act 2010, applying Rule 37 and the threshold of no reasonable prospect of success.

The first harassment allegation concerned a 25 November 2021 email from Ms Sophie Everard encouraging the claimant to return to work after a period of self-certified sickness absence. The tribunal found the email was polite, measured and professional, with no misuse of authority or threat of sanction, and held that the claimant's interpretation of it as unreasonable pressure was objectively unreasonable. It also said it did not necessarily accept that the email was related to disability for s.26 purposes.

The second harassment allegation concerned the instruction, sent after dismissal on 15 December 2021, requiring the claimant to return his laptop and phone by 17 December. The tribunal held that asking a dismissed employee to return company equipment was an everyday routine management matter, and it saw no prospect of the claimant showing that the instruction was related to disability or that his response to it could amount to harassment. That claim was therefore struck out.

The respondent's application to strike out part of the reasonable adjustments claim, and its alternative application for a deposit order, were refused. The tribunal said the factual matrix around the claimant's interaction with line management was fact-sensitive and unsuitable for strike out or a deposit order, while making clear that this was not a finding that the claim had merit. The claimant's applications to strike out the response were also refused, including the challenge to the respondent's defence on dismissal, because the reason for dismissal was part of the primary factual matrix to be determined on full evidence.