Case 3322573/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Ejehu v Reach Contact Limited — 2019

Case reference: 3322573/2019
Decision date: 25 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Moore
Panel members: Mr A Hayes, Ms S Laurence-Doig

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Ejehu

Respondent

Reach Contact Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr L Ejehu worked for Reach Contact Limited as a Field Sales Executive and had myocarditis. The respondent carried out a risk assessment in March 2019 and accepted he should drive an automatic car, not lift heavy objects, and not do tasks that would significantly increase his heart rate. The tribunal found that HW carried out audits on 3 April, 8 May and 31 May 2019 after identifying discrepancies in the claimant's recorded store visits, and it accepted the respondent's evidence that the later live audit supported concerns that the claimant had recorded store visits that had not taken place.

The disability claim under section 15 EqA 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant could not collect stock from the cash and carry because of his disability, but it found no link between that restriction and the decision to audit him. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under section 20 EqA 2010 was also dismissed because the tribunal held that the alleged manual-car requirement for the Paint London Green event was not a PCP of the respondent, and in any event the claimant was able to take part in the event after an alternative driver arrangement was made.

The disability harassment allegations under section 26 EqA 2010 were dismissed. The tribunal did not accept that HW made the alleged comment about a disabled badge. It found that SM simply forgot about the claimant's hospital appointment when arranging the 25 June 2019 disciplinary hearing, that the hearing did not proceed on that date, and that the 2 August 2019 email about exchanging the company car was not conduct related to disability that created a hostile or humiliating environment. The race discrimination claim under section 13 EqA 2010 was dismissed because the tribunal accepted HW's evidence that the annual leave request for 25 June 2019 was rejected for administrative reasons after the claimant was told to request authorised leave for a medical appointment, not because of race.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service.	Struck out	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of myocarditis and that he could not collect stock from the cash and carry, but found no evidence that the audits carried out by HW were because of that disability. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the audits followed discrepancies identified on the claimant's work and dismissed the section 15 claim.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal held that the alleged requirement to drive a manual car for the Paint London Green event was not a PCP of the respondent. It found that the claimant was able to volunteer for the event, that HW helped with the paperwork, and that an alternative arrangement was found so he could take part as a passenger.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The tribunal did not accept that HW said the claimant should get a disabled badge because he could not drive a manual car. It also found that SM forgot about the claimant's hospital appointment when arranging the 25 June 2019 disciplinary hearing, that the hearing did not go ahead on that date, and that the 2 August 2019 car email was an administrative request about exchanging vehicles rather than conduct amounting to harassment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Race discrimination	The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer race discrimination in relation to the refusal of annual leave for 25 June 2019. It accepted HW's evidence that the request was declined because the claimant was told not to use annual leave for a medical appointment and should instead request authorised leave, after which the system generated an automatic rejection.

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.