represented himself for the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Hassan had worked for Tesco for about 29 years and was absent from work from 15 January 2020 until the dismissal process ended in February 2021. Tesco accepted that he was disabled by anxiety, depression and epilepsy, and that his sickness absence from January 2020 to February 2021 arose in consequence of those disabilities. The tribunal recorded three occupational health reports, in April 2020, November 2020 and January 2021, which said he was unable to return to work and no adjustments could be suggested to facilitate a return.

The tribunal struck out the reasonable adjustments complaint at the final hearing because Mr Hassan had not complied with tribunal orders to disclose documents and provide a witness statement, so Tesco did not have enough information to understand and answer that complaint. The earlier unfair dismissal and age discrimination complaints had already been struck out by an order dated 9 December 2022 because the unfair dismissal claim was out of time and the ET1 did not disclose an age discrimination complaint.

On the remaining section 15 claim, the tribunal found that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because it removed the possibility of returning to work if Mr Hassan's medical position changed. It also found that the effective cause of the dismissal included his long-term disability-related sickness absence. Tesco relied on the legitimate aim of managing absence effectively within its business, and the tribunal accepted that the prolonged absence, the strain on the store, and the leadership role involved justified concern. The tribunal noted that Tesco had suggested alternatives including a different store, a different role, and a phased return, and held that keeping Mr Hassan on sick leave for another six months would have been a less discriminatory course but not a proportionate one in the circumstances. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was therefore dismissed. The mistaken sending of an appeal rationale document referring to misconduct was accepted as an error and did not affect the outcome.