Mr Theo Lester, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal sat at Watford before Employment Judge Hyams with members Mr T Maclean and Mr S Woodward. It heard claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety, but not by reason of any injury to his arm. The tribunal also held that by the time of the dismissal the respondent could reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was depressed.

The unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct on 29 March 2017, when he carried out a job at a customer's house in a way the respondent treated as unsafe. It accepted the evidence that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, including post-checks and attempts to inspect the property again, and it found reasonable grounds for concluding that the claimant had not used an eyebolt as required and had used a kitchen worktop or workbench as the base for the ladder. The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.

The tribunal rejected the reasonable-adjustments claim under sections 20 and 39. It considered the pleaded PCPs, including alleged failures to adhere to occupational health recommendations, monitor health after a phased return, and consider medical evidence. It found that some alleged PCPs were not established as practices, some were too imprecise, and some did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled employees. The tribunal also noted that the occupational health recommendations had in fact been followed during the phased return.

The section 15 claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's mental state could impair judgment when he felt under pressure, so that his unsafe decisions could arise in consequence of disability. However, it concluded that the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims identified by the respondent, namely protecting employees and customers and protecting the respondent from legal consequences of unsafe working. In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal took account of the earlier final written warning for health and safety breaches, the claimant's own view that his actions were safe, and its finding that the 29 March 2017 conduct was objectively unsafe. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.