Mr M Carroll v Thames Water Utilities Limited — 2020

The tribunal first considered whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a mental impairment, namely ASD. However, it found that the claimant had not shown that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The disability discrimination complaints therefore could not succeed and were dismissed.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was unable to return to his role at Kemble Court for medical reasons and that both his GP and occupational health supported redeployment. The respondent placed him in its redeployment pool, considered vacancies, and then dismissed him on notice for medical incapability when no suitable alternative role was secured. The tribunal found that this was the genuine reason for dismissal, not any alleged back-channel discussion or perception that he was a troublemaker.

The tribunal then considered the respondent's treatment of the two redeployment opportunities at Beddington and Ashford Common. It held that the decision not to shortlist the claimant for the Beddington role was reasonable given the evidence about his lack of match for that role. In relation to Ashford Common, the tribunal accepted that the interviewing manager genuinely believed after interview that the claimant lacked the required core skills and had performed poorly, and it found it reasonable not to appoint him. Taking all the circumstances together, the tribunal held that dismissal for medical incapability was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.