Case 3306382/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Phelps (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306382/2020
- Decision date
- 25 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms J Cameron, Mr D Palmer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Phelps (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was disabled for Equality Act purposes from February 2019 to 12 March 2020 because his earlier depressive condition was likely to recur, and from 13 March 2020 because he then had a moderate to severe depressive episode. Before 13 March 2020, his anxiety and low mood did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a depressive episode or generalised anxiety disorder, and the effects were found to be minor or trivial. The respondents did not know about his history of depression before his sickness absence in March 2020.
On direct disability discrimination, the tribunal found that Mr Bell had already decided by 11 February 2020 that the claimant could not stay in the business and that the performance improvement plan was being used as a mechanism to dismiss him, rather than as a genuine opportunity for improvement. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was Mr Bell’s view that the claimant was undermining the new leadership and holding up the business, not the claimant’s disability. It also found that the information available to Mr Bell in March 2020, including the claimant’s emails and fit note, did not make him aware of disability or the underlying facts amounting to it.
The discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the respondents did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled at the material times. The same knowledge finding defeated the reasonable adjustments complaint. For indirect discrimination, the tribunal considered the alleged PCPs of additional hours, a target of 10 business leads, and office attendance, but found no evidence that they put people with depression at a particular disadvantage or that the claimant was placed at such a disadvantage. It added that, if necessary, the measures would have been justified by the legitimate aim of improving the respondent’s business performance. No monetary remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination dismissed. The tribunal found Mr Bell decided on 11 February 2020 that the claimant should be dismissed because he considered the claimant’s behaviour undermining and the relationship untenable, and that he later brought the dismissal forward for the same non-disability reasons. It found Mr Bell did not know the claimant was disabled or of the underlying facts amounting to disability at those decision points. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability dismissed. The tribunal found neither respondent knew, and they could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had a disability at the material times between January and 27 March 2020, so section 15 could not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed. The tribunal held paragraph 20 of Schedule 8 meant no duty arose because the respondents did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled and likely to be placed at the alleged disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination dismissed. The alleged PCPs were working beyond contractual hours, generating at least 10 business leads, and working entirely in the office. The tribunal found no evidence that these PCPs put people with depression, or the claimant, at a particular disadvantage, and said that if any claim had succeeded it would in any event have been justified by the need to improve the respondent’s business performance. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 20(3) Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 20 of Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.