Case 3332631/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Macleod v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3332631/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr C Juden, Mr F Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Macleod
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Macleod was employed as a trauma and orthopaedic consultant, and the respondent accepted that he was a disabled person by reason of autism. The tribunal dealt with four linked claim forms, but the hearing was limited to liability. It held that most allegations failed either because they were out of time or because the claimant did not establish the legal elements needed for direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or reasonable adjustments.
The only allegation upheld was the direct disability discrimination claim arising from Dr Barker's comments during the meeting on 3 May 2018. The tribunal accepted that, after the claimant disclosed that he had autism, Dr Barker said that many doctors were on the spectrum, suggested that he communicate face to face rather than by email, referred to making Joe Bloggs a cup of coffee in the morning as something that would make him part of the team, and warned about not winding people up. It found that those remarks were prompted by the claimant's disability and amounted to less favourable treatment, even though the meeting was emotional and Dr Barker intended to reassure him.
All other disability discrimination allegations were dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant's approach to direct discrimination was flawed because he did not identify a proper comparator or supply evidence from which one could be constructed, and it rejected his indirect discrimination allegations because the alleged provisions, criteria or practices were not established on the evidence. The reasonable adjustments claims also failed because the claimant did not establish the necessary PCP, substantial disadvantage or other elements of that claim. Where time limits were in issue, the tribunal held that the claimant had not advanced any case for an extension and would not have extended time on a just and equitable basis.
No monetary award was assessed in this judgment. The tribunal reserved remedy and listed a provisional remedy hearing for 2 to 3 November 2023, together with case management for the stayed claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination only. The tribunal held that Dr Barker's comments during the 3 May 2018 meeting, made after the claimant disclosed autism, were because of disability and amounted to less favourable treatment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant did not establish the relevant PCPs, and many of the allegations were also out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the necessary PCP/substantial disadvantage case was not made out and, where relevant, the allegations were time-barred. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- s.23 Equality Act 2010 comparator
- EHRC Code of Practice para 3.29 comparator
- s.19 Equality Act 2010 indirect discrimination
- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments
- Schedule 8 para 20(1)(b) knowledge
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- s.140B Equality Act 2010 early conciliation extension
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Robertson v Bexley
- Thompson v Ark Schools
- Selkent v Moore
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
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.