Ms S Ismail of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, who had cerebral palsy hemiplegia, cervical spondylosis and generalised anxiety disorder, started work as a crown court usher in June 2018. An external occupational health report before his start date recommended a workstation assessment and identified restrictions and adjustments, including avoiding prolonged static positions and needing support to stretch and exercise. The tribunal found that Mr Tennant did not read the report, that the DSE or workstation assessment was delayed, and that the claimant's symptoms worsened during the first weeks of work.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's direct discrimination allegations about the July and August 2018 incidents, including the return-to-work meeting, the trolley incident, the exchange with Mr Parker, the probation-related correspondence and the later raising of judges' concerns. It accepted that some events caused the claimant distress, but found that the relevant managers were not acting because of disability when they failed to arrange the assessment or when they managed the later issues. One allegation about Ms Martin was withdrawn during the hearing.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal held that the respondent's failures to put in place the required adjustments, the extension of probation and the later management of the judges' concerns were not unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and in some respects were justified by the respondent's stated management aims. On victimisation, it held that the protected act was the first tribunal claim on 18 October 2018, but that the judges' concerns had been raised because of an external complaint and not because the claimant had brought proceedings.

The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage, that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known this, and that an early DSE or workstation assessment should have been done at the start of employment. It held that a proper chair, screen-height adjustment, automatic pencil sharpener, a private space for exercises and a workable plan for breaks should have been provided earlier. The tribunal also found that these failures were sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach, and that the claimant was dismissed when he resigned on 6 February 2019, but it did not hold that the dismissal was an act of direct discrimination or victimisation. Remedy was left to a later hearing listed for 12 August 2021.