Case 3309629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Redman, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309629/2022
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Panel members
- Mrs A Bray, Mr G Page
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Redman, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by reason of autism at all material times and that it knew or ought reasonably to have known this from 16 April 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant's inability to interact fully with the respondent's IT system, complete Work Coach training, perform the Work Coach role, pass probation, engage in some multi-party meetings, and his stress-related absence were matters arising from his disability.
Most of the section 15 allegations did not succeed because the tribunal did not find the alleged treatment was because of those matters arising from disability, or because it was not unfavourable treatment. The section 15 complaint succeeded in relation to the meeting on 11 March 2022. The tribunal found that the line manager's approach at that meeting was aggressive, belligerent, and lacking in empathy and understanding, and that this conduct was because of exasperation with the effects of the claimant's autism. The respondent did not establish justification for that treatment.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that several alleged PCPs either did not give rise to a successful claim or had no identified reasonable adjustment. The successful reasonable adjustment complaints were the respondent's practice of only considering reasonable adjustments in the context of a substantive position, which led it not to apply its Job Carving policy while the claimant was on probation, and its practice of only allowing work colleagues or trade union representatives to accompany employees to meetings, when allowing a specialist companion from outside the organisation would have been a reasonable adjustment.
The section 15 complaint was in time. The Job Carving reasonable adjustment complaint was out of time but the tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds. The companion-related reasonable adjustment complaint was treated as part of a continuing course of conduct and was in time. Remedy was reserved for a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to the conduct of the 11 March 2022 meeting, which the tribunal found led to the claimant's resignation. Other pleaded instances of alleged section 15 unfavourable treatment did not succeed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to failing to apply the Job Carving policy while the claimant was on probation, and refusing before 11 March 2022 to allow the claimant to be accompanied by a person of his choice. Other alleged reasonable adjustment failures did not succeed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.4 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- HM Prison Service v Johnson
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services Ltd
- Lamb v The Business Academy Bexley
- Nottingham City Transport Ltd v Harvey
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Fareham College Corporation v Waters
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Garrett v LIDL Ltd
- Southampton City College v Randall
- Project Management Institute v Latiff
- Owen v Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd
- Burke v The College of Law
- Home Office (UK Visas and Immigration) v Kuranchie
- Archibald v Fife Council
- South Staffordshire & Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v Billingsley
- Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- General Dynamics v Carranza
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- City of York Council v Grosset; Pnaiser v NHS England; Hensam v Ministry of Defence; Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lax; Gray v University of Portsmouth; University of Manchester v Jones; Allonby v Accrington
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.