In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Mr Gareth Ruddock worked for the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency as a driving examiner from 2016. The tribunal recorded that he was a disabled person by reason of depression at all material times and that DVSA knew of that disability. The substantive allegations concerned conduct on 15 December 2019 at Leighton Buzzard, a 27 December 2019 test where a licence was not checked, and a 31 January 2020 driving allegation in a Ford Capri; the tribunal found the Ford Capri allegation not proven, but found the Leighton Buzzard and licence allegations proven.

The direct discrimination allegations were withdrawn during the hearing. The tribunal accepted that the fraud-database paragraph in an earlier draft dismissal letter copied to the appeal officer was an administrative error and that no report was made to the Cabinet Office. It also found that DVSA did take account of Mr Ruddock's disability, obtained occupational health advice, and asked about reasonable adjustments. The tribunal rejected the case that memory loss arose from his depression, relying in particular on the June 2020 occupational health report that recorded no discernible decreases in concentration or memory, and found that he had not shown any disability-linked disadvantage. The discrimination arising from disability and indirect discrimination claims therefore failed, and the remaining disability-related harassment allegations failed because the challenged conduct was not related to disability and did not create the proscribed environment.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the dismissal decision-makers genuinely believed Mr Ruddock had driven recklessly at Leighton Buzzard and had taken a test without checking the candidate's licence, that those beliefs were based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found the ACAS Code appeared to have been followed, that the later appeal contact with HR was appropriate, and that trust and confidence had broken down. The wages and holiday-pay aspects failed: the tribunal held the respondent was entitled to recover the £300 overpayment, and that additional paid leave or disability adjustment leave was not due while he was off work on full pay.