Mr W Brown, Solicitor For the v Ms S Percival, Solicitor — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of diabetes, but it did not accept that his anxiety, nut allergy, asthma or borderline personality disorder met the statutory definition on the evidence given. It also found that the claimant's account of telling Mr Wall about those conditions at interview, and of being refused a rest break on 30 March 2019, was inconsistent and not credible. The tribunal found that Royal Mail's postmen could take rest breaks at a time convenient to them, and that the claimant took a break after speaking with Mr Wall.

The direct age discrimination claim was dismissed because the claimant did not establish less favourable treatment because of age. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Wall made the alleged remarks about the claimant being a young lad or young chap who should be fine, and it found no basis for the claimant's later alternative case that younger workers were denied breaks. Applying the burden of proof provisions in EqA 2010 s.136 and the authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established a prima facie case.

The harassment claims related to disability and sexual orientation were also dismissed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments were made, and it held that there were no facts from which unwanted conduct related to the relevant protected characteristic could properly be inferred. The tribunal referred to the statutory harassment test and Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal in its reasons.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had not identified a credible PCP. His pleaded case that employees were not given rest breaks when sorting mail was unsupported by evidence, and his later case that younger employees were denied breaks was raised without evidential basis. The tribunal therefore held that there was no substantial disadvantage and no duty-breach on the facts found.

The unauthorised deductions from wages claim failed as to the disputed pay for 20 April 2019 and notice pay after the claimant did not attend work on 27 April 2019. The tribunal found that his absence was unauthorised and that the respondent was entitled to treat it as gross misconduct and to dismiss summarily without notice pay. It recorded, however, that the respondent acknowledged 3.2 hours unpaid holiday and said this would be paid. The provisional remedy hearing was vacated and no tribunal award was set out in the judgment.