Mr Beaton, Counsel For the v Mr S Peacock, Solicitor — 2023

The tribunal extended time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 so that acts before 8 June 2023 could be considered, taking into account that the claimant was in his seventies and had been hospitalised with sepsis, with adverse effects on his mental wellbeing. The respondent accepted that the claimant had a disability, identified as sepsis in both knees from August 2022.

On the direct age discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that the claimant was not pushed towards ill-health retirement because of age. It accepted that the claimant had agreed to an occupational health referral after a discussion in January 2023, that occupational health would have checked consent at the outset of any referral meeting, and that the later discussion in May 2023 took place after the claimant had not yet recovered and after further surgery had been planned. The tribunal also rejected the age discrimination complaint about voluntary redundancy, finding that the discussion arose from a general Royal Mail scooping exercise open to all employees and that Mr Tiwari had raised it so the claimant would not miss the opportunity while absent from work.

The indirect age discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant had not established a group disadvantage from the pleaded provision, criterion or practice, so the burden did not shift to the respondent. It said that, even if there had been a delay in progressing ill-health retirement, the reason was that the respondent did not consider it appropriate to authorise a further occupational health referral until after the claimant's right-knee surgery and rehabilitation, which could have led to a return to work. The tribunal said that would have been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The section 15 disability claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the reason the claimant did not attend the 27 April 2023 occupational health appointment at short notice was that he had another hospital appointment related to his disability, but it found that the standard letter sent afterwards, viewed objectively, was not critical and did not amount to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. It also held that the pleaded complaint about delay in processing ill-health retirement did not succeed on the case advanced. No monetary award was made.