In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought complaints that he had suffered detriments and dismissal for making protected disclosures, that his dismissal was direct disability discrimination, and, in the alternative, that he was unfairly dismissed. Earlier claims for unauthorised deductions and discrimination because of religion and disability had been withdrawn or dismissed at a case management hearing and were not treated as live claims.

The tribunal dismissed the protected disclosure and direct disability discrimination complaints. It found that disability was not a factor in the respondent's appeal decision and did not identify discriminatory unfairness in the redundancy consultation process.

The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded because the respondent had not fairly consulted about proposed redundancy selection criteria and had acted unreasonably in one aspect of scoring. The tribunal found that this unfairness had only a limited impact and made no difference to the outcome, concluding that the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed by reason of redundancy by 29 October 2022.