Case 3324033/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person. For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 3324033/2019
Decision date: 1 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Members
Panel members: Mrs A Gibson, Mr A Kapur

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person. For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a disability, namely depression and/or anxiety, but found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of that disability during employment. The claimant worked as a branch assistant at Slough from 21 June 2018 until dismissal with notice on 15 October 2019. The tribunal also found that the claimant was often difficult to deal with in cross-examination, while the respondent’s witnesses were clear and frank.

On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected the allegations of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation. It found that the increase in workload, monitoring of work, supervision by Mr Ruggier, the absence-management process, the disciplinary steps, the mediation attempts and the suspension were all explained by branch management issues, sickness absence triggers or misconduct concerns, and were not because of disability. On the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant had been given appropriate PPE, could buy alternative gloves and be reimbursed, and was told not to undertake heavy lifting and to seek assistance where needed.

The tribunal also found no indirect discrimination because the claimant did not show that the disciplinary policy, absence-management policy or supervision arrangements placed disabled employees at a particular disadvantage, and in any event those measures were proportionate. On victimisation, it held that the June and September grievances were not protected acts because they did not allege Equality Act contraventions, although the tribunal accepted that the later employment tribunal claim was a protected act. It found the suspension and dismissal were not because of that protected act, but because of the photograph complaint and the claimant’s live written warning.

The final claim for unlawful deduction from wages was withdrawn. The claimant accepted the respondent’s explanation that the two unpaid days were waiting days under the Statutory Sick Pay scheme. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	s.13 direct discrimination allegation based on workload increases and supervision/monitoring; the tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably because of disability and that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known he was disabled.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	s.19 indirect discrimination allegation based on the disciplinary policy, absence management trigger and supervision/monitoring; the tribunal found no evidence that disabled employees were particularly disadvantaged and held the PCPs were proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	s.20 failure to make reasonable adjustments allegation concerning standard PPE and manual handling practices; the tribunal found suitable PPE had been provided or could be bought and reimbursed, and that the claimant was told not to lift heavy items and to seek assistance.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	s.26 harassment allegations covered workload increases, monitoring, supervision by Mr Ruggier, absence management, disciplinary steps, email handling, the Mr Willoughby altercation and suspension; the tribunal found these were not related to disability and were reasonable management responses.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	s.27 victimisation allegations relied on grievances of 24 June and 1 September 2019 and the ET claim filed on 7 October 2019; the tribunal held the grievances were not protected acts, the ET claim was, but the suspension and dismissal were for misconduct and the live warning rather than because of any protected act.

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.