Case 3320197/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Browne (counsel) For the v Mr S Sim (senior litigation consultant) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3320197/2019
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Ms HT Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Browne (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Miller worked for Rentokil Initial UK Ltd as a pest control technician from 11 April 2016 until his dismissal on 13 March 2019. The tribunal accepted that he had multiple sclerosis, which was a disability, and considered complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal. It found the discrimination claims and the unfair dismissal claim were presented in time after ACAS early conciliation was taken into account.
On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found a PCP requiring field staff to work in their substantive roles and held that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he was permanently restricted from working at heights and his MS made him slower at work. It rejected the separate hours PCP complaint, but held that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment when it did not offer the claimant a four-week trial in the office-based service administrator role. The tribunal found that role was more junior, included administrative work already familiar to the claimant, and could reasonably have been tried with training or support if needed.
The tribunal held that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely the claimant's inability to continue in the technician role and the need for restrictions and reduced workload. Although capability was a potentially fair reason and the respondent had taken several steps to manage the claimant's position, the dismissal was not proportionate because the service administrator trial should have been offered. The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded because the failure to offer that alternative role took the dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses. The respondent was ordered to pay £14,445.43 in total, comprising £2,698.87 financial loss (including £232.91 interest), £8,000 injury to feelings (plus £1,564.06 interest), a basic award of £1,309.50, and a compensatory award of £873.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the separate hours PCP complaint, but upheld the reasonable adjustments complaint because the respondent should have offered the claimant a four-week trial in the office-based service administrator role. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, namely the claimant's inability to continue in the technician role and the need for restrictions and reduced workload. The tribunal held dismissal was not proportionate because the service administrator trial should have been offered. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Capability was the stated reason, but the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses because the claimant should have been offered the alternative service administrator role on a trial basis before dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,445
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,310
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £873
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Archibald v Fife Council
- General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State for Justice and another v Dunn
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Vento bands
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.