Mr Darren Reid v 3663 Transport Limited — 2023

The tribunal found that Mr Reid, employed by 3663 Transport Limited from 2004 until 13 August 2020, suffered from severe depressive disorder and was a disabled person within section 6 EqA 2010. It accepted that the respondent knew, or ought to have known, from February 2020 and certainly by receipt of occupational health advice on 4 May 2020. After the DVLA revoked his LGV licence with effect from 6 August 2020, the respondent invited him to a disciplinary hearing, suspended him on full pay, and dismissed him on 13 August 2020 on the basis that he was in breach of contract and could not lawfully drive; the appeal was dismissed on 14 September 2020.

On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal held that the 19 February 2020 email was not unfavourable treatment and that describing him as in breach of contract was not unfavourable. It did find unfavourable treatment arising from disability in inviting him to disciplinary proceedings, suspending him, telling him he had to be fit and well for 12 months from the DVLA letter, failing to consider him for alternative employment, and dismissing him. The tribunal accepted that suspension and the disciplinary process pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring lawful driving, but it held that dismissal, the 12-month requirement, and the failure to consider alternative roles were not proportionate because the respondent had not properly considered the scope of his actual role or possible alternatives.

The tribunal preferred the claimant's account that his role involved significant office-based work and variable driving, rather than a 95% LGV-driving job. The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded because the respondent applied a PCP requiring an LGV licence, which placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and it failed to consider alternative roles. The indirect discrimination complaint based on the licence PCP was rejected as the tribunal held that the PCP was legitimate and proportionate. The tribunal also found that the dismissal was unfair: although the reason for dismissal was the loss of the LGV licence, which was a potentially fair reason under section 98(2)(d) ERA 1996, the process did not fall within the range of reasonable responses because there was no proper consideration of the claimant's actual duties or of redeployment. The appeal did not cure those defects, and the tribunal found that the claimant did not contribute to his dismissal. No monetary award is recorded in the supplied judgment.