Mr C Barklem (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

Mr Rashid worked for LHR Airports Limited as a security officer from 2005 until his summary dismissal on 27 July 2020. The tribunal accepted that he had Asperger's Syndrome and found that the respondent had actual knowledge of the disability from 2018, or at the latest constructive knowledge by the time disciplinary action was taken. It found that his disability affected how he processed nuance, social cues and changes to routine, and that these features were relevant to how he experienced and reacted to the incident and the later process.

The case arose from a vehicle search on 23 October 2019. The tribunal found that the search was not completed in line with the relevant security standards, but it did not accept the respondent's characterisation of Mr Rashid's account as false or vexatious. It found that he had consistently described the incident, that he genuinely believed Mr Martin had behaved in an aggressive or intimidating way, and that some of the disputed events, including finger pointing and the presence of more than one item in the vehicle, were supported by the CCTV or other evidence. It also found that his grievance was raised after mediation had been refused, not as a device to frustrate discipline.

The tribunal criticised the disciplinary and grievance handling in several respects. It found that Ms Calleja's investigation was influenced by wider management concerns about Mr Rashid, that he was not given a fair opportunity to address matters beyond the framed allegations, and that he was denied access to CCTV when others were not. It also found that Mr Ng and Mr Shea relied on wider conduct concerns and alleged inconsistency in Mr Rashid's account, rather than staying within the actual allegations, and that they failed to consider whether his perceptions may have been shaped by his disability. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted misconduct as the potentially fair reason but held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses, that there was no contributory fault, and that a Polkey reduction would not have been justified.

The tribunal upheld the s.15 EqA 2010 claim and found that the disciplinary investigation, dismissal and appeal were unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely Mr Rashid's difficulties with nuance, social cues and changes to routine. It rejected justification. It also upheld the harassment claim save for the allegation that Mr Ng refused to consider medical evidence at all, finding instead that the repeated questioning about late disclosure of disability and the refusal to accept the medical evidence as mitigation created an intimidating and hostile environment. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the respondent failed to prove gross misconduct. The supplied text does not contain any remedy assessment or award.