Case 3321633/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mrs L Randall, Employment Consultant — 2020

Case reference: 3321633/2019
Decision date: 12 August 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Moore
Venue: Cambridge
Panel members: Ms E Davies, Mr C Davie

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mrs L Randall, Employment Consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked for the respondent initially through an agency from 25 October 2017 and then as an employee from 1 October 2018 in the Omega warehouse. His employment was subject to a six-month probationary period, monitored for time-keeping, conduct, performance and attendance. The tribunal recorded that claims for breach of contract and compensation for untaken annual leave had been withdrawn before the hearing. It found that he was dismissed on 18 April 2019 for failing the standards of probation.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of Autism Spectrum Condition, but it found that he did not tell Mr Warriner that he had autism or any other disability before his dismissal. It rejected the claimant's account that disability was mentioned in conversations shortly after he started work, at probationary meetings, or at the dismissal meeting. The tribunal also found that the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability, noting the claimant's own pre-employment questionnaire responses, the absence of evidence of absenteeism or a change in behaviour, and the fact that the formal diagnosis was not made until August 2019.

The claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 therefore failed because the respondent did not have the necessary knowledge. The reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 also failed for the same reason. The indirect discrimination claim under section 19 failed because the tribunal identified the PCP as requiring employees to use the one-man LLOP and pick accurately, found that the evidence did not show a particular disadvantage for people with Autism Spectrum Condition, and in any event held that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The harassment claim under section 26 was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the extension of probation by 12 weeks was because of unsatisfactory time-keeping and not because of disability. It also found that the alleged comment that the claimant's picking was 'shit' had not been proved. The judgment therefore dismissed all live disability discrimination claims and recorded no monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 dismissed; tribunal found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had Autism Spectrum Condition before dismissal.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 dismissed; the tribunal held the identified PCP was requiring employees to use the one-man LLOP and pick accurately, found no evidence that it put people with Autism Spectrum Condition at a particular disadvantage, and held it proportionate in any event.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent lacked actual and constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability before dismissal, so the reasonable adjustments claim failed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 dismissed; the tribunal found that extending probation for 12 weeks because of time-keeping was not conduct related to disability and that the alleged remark about the claimant's picking being 'shit' was not proved.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.