Case 3325393/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Georgiou v Jordan Andrews Ltd (First Respondent) Mr J Stavrinou (Second Respondent) Mr S Stavrinou (Third Respondent) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3325393/2019
- Decision date
- 16 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms J Hancock, Ms A Brosnan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Georgiou
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal from 9 to 13 August 2021 before Employment Judge Quill, sitting with Ms J Hancock and Ms A Brosnan. The tribunal found that the First Respondent had subjected the Claimant to disability discrimination within section 19 Equality Act 2010 by applying PCPs requiring employees to fetch and carry products from any location within the factory, including upstairs, and to use their vehicles during the day when they had to be parked away from the showroom.
The tribunal also found a failure to make reasonable adjustments within section 21 Equality Act 2010. It held that the First Respondent contravened section 39(5) Equality Act 2010 by failing to remove any requirement or expectation that the Claimant fetch and carry items from the mezzanine or first floor, and by failing to allow him to use the business's local authority parking permit. In addition, it found harassment related to disability on 1 June 2019 by the First Respondent and the Second Respondent, and harassment related to disability on 7 June 2019 by the First Respondent and the Third Respondent.
The tribunal dismissed the other complaints of indirect discrimination, failure to make adjustments and harassment, and it dismissed the complaints of discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract also failed and were dismissed.
The judgment records that remedy was reserved after submissions, and that the panel would meet without the parties on 4 October 2021, with a written decision and reasons to follow. No remedy figure is set out in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was found; the First Respondent contravened section 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010 by applying PCPs requiring employees to fetch and carry products from any location within the factory, including upstairs, and to use their vehicles during the day when they had to be parked away from the showroom. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint under section 21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The First Respondent contravened section 39(5) Equality Act 2010 by failing to remove any requirement or expectation that the Claimant fetch and carry items from the mezzanine or first floor and by failing to allow him to use the business's local authority parking permit. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was found against the First Respondent and the Second Respondent on 1 June 2019, as itemised at paragraph 13b of the list of issues. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was found against the First Respondent and the Third Respondent on 7 June 2019, as itemised at paragraph 13d of the list of issues. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Other | The complaint of disability discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010 failed, and the tribunal also recorded that the other complaints of indirect discrimination, failure to make adjustments and harassment were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010
- section 39(5) Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
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.