In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The tribunal accepted that Mr Liburd was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of PTSD, depression and anxiety. It found that he had a lengthy sickness absence from July 2018, returned on a phased basis from November 2019, and was ultimately dismissed after he declined to return to his existing role and did not accept the redeployment options then being explored. The tribunal also observed that his subjective perception of events often differed from the objective evidence, and it relied on occupational health material that referred to perception, sensitivity, and reduced resilience.

The harassment and direct discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal rejected the specific allegations relied on at issues 5.1 to 5.14 and 10.1 to 10.14, finding that many were not established on the facts, some did not relate to disability, and others would not reasonably be regarded as violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. It also found no adequate basis to infer that the respondent treated him less favourably because of disability. Matters such as promotion decisions, communication about vacancies, seating, the handling of his return to work, and the dismissal process were, on the tribunal's findings, better explained by the absence-management process, his own absence from work, or the fact that he had not applied for the roles in question.

On the section 15 EqA claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's absence from work and his inability or unwillingness to return to his original role or to the alternative roles offered arose in consequence of his disability. It nevertheless held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The tribunal found that the respondent had kept matters under review, obtained occupational health advice, explored redeployment, and used a phased return in an effort to support a return to work, but that by the end of the process there was nothing further it could reasonably do to secure the claimant's return.

On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that certain PCPs placed the claimant at a disadvantage, including the expectation of returning to full duties, normal hours and a normal office environment, and the application of attendance management trigger points. It nevertheless found that the phased return itself was a reasonable adjustment and that the respondent had implemented the adjustments reasonably contended for during that period. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the respondent was required to create a new role, short-list the claimant for unrelated vacancies, or do more through Access to Work. The unfair dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal held that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that, given the lengthy process and the claimant's refusal of both his substantive role and the available redeployment options, the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses. No monetary award was made.