Case 3321580/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Faulkner v Gi Group Recruitment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321580/2019
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Faulkner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Faulkner brought claims against GI Group Recruitment Limited after resigning on 10 June 2019 from his role as a production operative, which he had held from 21 June 2016 and in which he had been assigned to work at BMW. The original claim form also referred to race discrimination, but that complaint did not continue because it related to a second respondent and early conciliation had not been completed. The tribunal heard the matter at a preliminary hearing on 5 May 2021.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that general anxiety disorder and social anxiety were capable of amounting to a mental impairment, but held that the evidence did not show a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal considered the claimant's reliance on eye contact, historical use of alternative personalities, difficulty expressing opinions, sleep disturbance, sweating, avoiding shops or the hairdresser, dislike of being touched, avoidance of shared food, continence issues and unspecified sexual problems, but was not satisfied that those matters were proved to the required extent.
Because the claimant was not disabled, the disability discrimination complaint could not succeed. The unfair constructive dismissal complaint was also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments and a refusal to move the claimant to a different production line after a disciplinary hearing on 28 March 2019, but the tribunal found there was no record of such a request and that the alleged refusal to move him was not, on the facts alleged, a fundamental breach of contract. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add an Agency Workers Regulations 2010 complaint, describing it as a distinct claim that was out of time and would require new enquiries, and concluded that amendment was not in the interests of justice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the asserted anxiety conditions could amount to a mental impairment, but held that the evidence did not show a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair (constructive) dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The pleaded failure to make reasonable adjustments failed because the claimant was not disabled, and the alleged refusal to move him was not found to amount to a fundamental breach of contract on the facts alleged. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- substantial and long-term adverse effect test
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610
- Guidance on the definition of disability (2011)
- fundamental breach of contract
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.