Case 3313748/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Frame, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313748/2022
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs A Buck, Mr K Lannaman
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Frame, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Richardson, who was autistic, worked as a Bar Associate at the Queen of Iceni from 15 May 2021 until his dismissal on 31 August 2022. The tribunal found that the dismissal followed an investigation into Facebook posts and comments made to colleagues, including remarks about Pride and gay people, and that the religion/philosophical belief complaints were withdrawn during the hearing.
On the disability direct discrimination complaint, the tribunal held that a Bar Associate without autism who made the same remarks and posted the same material would also have been summarily dismissed. It found there were no facts from which an inference could properly be drawn that the dismissal was because of autism, and in any event accepted Mr Hilton's evidence that the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct and not autism.
The tribunal accepted that the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy and the social media policy were PCPs and that autistic staff could be disadvantaged by them, but it held that the respondent's aims of preventing offensive, discriminatory or harassing conduct and enforcing equality obligations were legitimate and that the policies were proportionate. It accepted that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that Mr Richardson was autistic and disadvantaged by the PCPs, but rejected the proposed adjustments, including allowing him to post with a disclaimer, ignoring historical posts, taking a more relaxed approach to policy enforcement, or asking colleagues to disregard what he said, as impractical or not reasonable.
The harassment complaint related to disability also failed. The tribunal found that the disciplinary meeting was not hostile, that Mr Richardson was given time to answer and breaks were provided, and that the challenged remarks by colleagues did not create the proscribed environment. The notice pay and breach of contract claim failed because the contract permitted summary dismissal for gross misconduct, which the tribunal found had occurred.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | All religion/philosophical belief discrimination complaints were withdrawn at the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination claim based on dismissal on 31 August 2022 failed; the tribunal found a non-disabled comparator in materially the same circumstances would also have been summarily dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim based on the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy and the social media policy failed; the tribunal accepted the policies were PCPs but held they were a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under ss.20-21 EqA 2010 failed; the tribunal rejected the proposed adjustments as not reasonable or practicable in the circumstances. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim related to autism failed; the tribunal held the disciplinary meeting was not hostile and the alleged conduct did not create the proscribed environment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim failed because the claimant was found guilty of gross misconduct and the contract allowed summary dismissal without notice. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- Grainger test
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.19 EqA 2010
- Hampson test
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Bethnal Green and Shoreditch Education Trust v Jeanne Dippenaar
- Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lax
- s.26 EqA 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Grant v Her Majesty's Land Registry
- s.20 EqA 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- HM Prison Service v Johnson
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Cosgrove v Caesar and Howie
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
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.