Mr B Watkins v Cannon Moorcroft Ltd — 2022

Mr Watkins was employed by Cannon Moorcroft Ltd as an Assistant Manager from 3 December 2018 on a three-month probationary period and was dismissed on 27 February 2019 for poor performance. The tribunal found that concerns about his work were raised before the dismissal decision, including issues with timesheets, client work, delegation, record keeping, communication and management of tasks. Those concerns were discussed at the mid-probation review on 15 January 2019 and again at management meetings on 18 and 26 February 2019, before the claimant's dismissal was confirmed in writing on 1 March 2019.

The section 13 direct disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that a non-disabled comparator with the same performance record would also have been dismissed. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the performance concerns were genuine and that it had previously employed another person with CKD for many years, which supported the conclusion that disability itself was not the reason for the dismissal. The tribunal said it did not need to rely on the burden of proof provisions because it was able to make positive findings on the evidence.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's performance problems were connected to his disability, including fatigue, brain fog and reduced cognitive function. It also concluded that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of the disability by the dismissal date, and that by the appeal stage the disability had been clearly raised. However, the tribunal held that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims: maintaining a high standard of client service, managing staff efficiently, maintaining a professional working environment and protecting the respondent from negligence risk. It found that part-time working, delaying dismissal or requiring further checking of the claimant's work would not have been a proportionate alternative.