In person For the v Mr G. Jones, consultant. — 2024

Mr M Davies worked for Anthony Betts & Company Ltd as a Sales Executive from 18 October 2016. The respondent accepted that he was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a hip condition described as slipped upper femoral epiphysis. The tribunal recorded that he brought claims of direct disability discrimination under section 13 and discrimination arising from disability under section 15, based on events between June 2020 and July 2021, and that he did not challenge his later dismissal in these proceedings.

The tribunal rejected the allegations that he was excluded from morning meeting banter, called a liability, moved into a corner of the showroom because of disability, not given a return-to-work assessment because of disability, or asked to hand in his showroom keys for a disability-related reason. It found the desk move was due to Covid social distancing and telephone points, there was no evidence of exclusion from banter, the liability remark was not proved and in any event would have related to Covid views or the car accident, the lack of a return-to-work assessment did not amount to unfavourable treatment, and the keys were needed because the cleaning had been outsourced.

On the alleged comments that he was like an old man and the weakest link, the tribunal said it could believe the former comment may have been made but that, in the context of a workplace with regular banter, it was not sufficiently offensive to amount to unfavourable treatment; it also said that, had harassment been claimed, the comment would not have met section 26 Equality Act 2010. It was not satisfied that the weakest-link remark was made; if it was, it would have reflected concern about absences and the court proceedings affecting his driving licence rather than his hip condition.

The tribunal found that the refusal to pay commission on three sales on 29 May 2021, the 5 June 2021 meeting about absence and attitude, the requirement to isolate in July 2021, the payment of sick pay rather than full pay, the refusal to let him return until he had isolated further, the absence of a suggestion that he work from home, the response from SJ about a company car, and the recording of the grievance meeting were all unrelated to the hip disability. It accepted that his absences were linked to stress from court proceedings, possible loss of his driving licence, and a foot bite, and it found that the Covid decisions were taken because he had not had a PCR test and appeared unwell. The tribunal therefore found neither less favourable treatment because of disability nor unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and dismissed both claims.