Miss Crowther, Daughter of the Claimant For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a Gas Surveyor Supervisor, suffered a stroke on 5 February 2021. The respondent accepted that he was disabled for the purposes of s.6 EqA 2010 and knew of that disability. The tribunal directed itself on the s.123 EqA 2010 time limit, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Hendricks approach to continuing acts, and the s.136 burden of proof. It held that the earliest disability complaints were prima facie out of time and refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, but still addressed the complaints for completeness.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the respondent supported the claimant's return to work. He returned on 15 March 2021, initially on reduced days, with tandem working for six weeks, then four days, then five days at his own request. Occupational health recommended a phased return, driving breaks and later a co-driver or Access to Work support; the tribunal found that the respondent implemented the adjustments it could provide, including checklists and an iPad, and that the more limited hours suggested by the claimant were not reasonable or practicable for a small business operating in a regulated gas-safety environment.

The tribunal rejected the disability discrimination claims. It found that raising concerns about the quality and safety of the claimant's work, carrying out competency reviews, and discussing a PIP were not unfavourable treatment because of disability. It also held that the PIP was aimed at addressing performance and training gaps, not at penalising the claimant, and that a non-disabled comparator with the same performance history would have been treated in the same way. The indirect discrimination case also failed because the PIP response was proportionate to the legitimate aim of safe performance.

The harassment and victimisation claims failed. The June 2021 emails about vehicle check sheets, vehicle damage and leaving early were treated as ordinary management and disciplinary reminders, not unwanted conduct meeting the s.26 EqA 2010 test. The alleged comments said to have been made on 31 August 2021 were not proved, and the tribunal found no causal link between the grievance and the PIP. The direct age discrimination allegation also failed because there was no evidence that age played any part in the treatment complained of.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because none of the matters relied on, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of contract or conduct without just cause or reason. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had admitted smoking in a company vehicle, that the final written warning was issued against the backdrop of the handbook and contract, and that the ACS Gas training and PIP steps were taken for operational and safety reasons. The separate breach of contract claim for unpaid wages at the end of employment also failed for lack of evidence. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.