In person (16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 25 February 2026) Ms Gilbert, Counsel (1 April 2026 – closing submissions) For the v Respondent — 2026

Miss Udekwu was employed by BCA Logistics Limited as a Driver from 8 November 2021 until her summary dismissal on 17 June 2023. It was common ground that she was disabled throughout her employment by palindromic rheumatism. Her direct disability discrimination and victimisation complaints were dismissed, but specified reasonable-adjustments, discrimination-arising-from-disability and harassment complaints succeeded.

The Tribunal upheld the reasonable-adjustments claim concerning requirements to drive manual vehicles and, under the revised rota, sometimes to work four days followed by two days off. Driving manual vehicles, particularly more than one per day, caused pain, inflammation, swollen joints and discomfort, while insufficient recovery time increased the likelihood of symptoms and flare-ups. The Respondent should have made reasonable efforts to limit manual-vehicle allocations to one per day and should either have provided at least three days off after three or more consecutive shifts or limited the Claimant to no more than three consecutive shifts. The occupational-health complaint failed because no practice of failing to progress referrals was established, and the long-distance-driving complaint failed because the Claimant had not shown substantial disadvantage: her average delivery mileage was 22 miles and 99% of her deliveries were under 60 miles.

The Final Absence Warning issued following the January 2023 review, and the Second Absence Warning substituted on appeal in February 2023, amounted to unfavourable treatment because of disability-related absence under s.15 Equality Act 2010. Although the Respondent identified legitimate aims for managing absence, the warnings were not proportionate because a less discriminatory approach would have disregarded the disability-related absences. The same warnings also amounted to disability-related harassment under s.26 because they were unwanted, related to disability-related sickness absence, and reasonably created an adverse working environment where insufficient allowance had been made for the Claimant's disability.

The failure to progress the occupational-health referral was found to result from organisational inefficiency, lack of individual ownership and oversight, rather than because of disability or protected acts. The complaint concerning Mr Asghar's expression of frustration about absence in early September 2022 was treated as a standalone matter presented out of time; the Tribunal declined to extend time because of material forensic prejudice. Other complaints concerning meetings, workplace comments, task changes, the disciplinary process and Mr King's reference to mental health either lacked the necessary primary facts or were not causally related to disability or protected acts.

The dismissal-related discrimination complaints were dismissed. The Tribunal found that the delivery of an incorrect vehicle, the Claimant's handling of the situation and the explanation she provided were the reasons for the dismissal and rejection of her appeal. Mr Jones was unaware that the Claimant was disabled when he dismissed her, the conduct leading to dismissal did not arise from disability, and the employees identified on appeal were not appropriate comparators because they had proactively contacted the Operations Team and avoided customer complaints.