In person, assisted by his friend Mr Ranjit Singh v Mr Paul Bownes, solicitor — 2020

The claimant, who had been employed by Royal Mail since 7 September 1997 as a parcel sorter, was found to be disabled by reason of depression and the respondent accepted that it knew of that disability. The dispute arose from the claimant’s continuing efforts in early 2018 to obtain an occupational health referral from Mr Kishan Patel, his line manager, after he had refused to be referred to the respondent’s usual provider, Atos/OH Assist, because of previous experience. On 10 July 2018 Mr Patel printed the wrong attachment from an AXA PPP email and gave the claimant an occupational health consent form marked for pensions rather than the intended referral form.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted Mr Patel’s evidence that this was a genuine mistake. It rejected the claimant’s case that the wrong form had been given deliberately to trick or humiliate him, finding that such a theory was implausible and inconsistent with the fact that Mr Patel was trying to help the claimant secure an occupational health assessment. The tribunal also held that any disadvantage caused by the mistake was transitory and trivial. Even if giving the wrong form amounted to unfavourable treatment, the only reason for it was an honest error, and that error was not something arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability. The section 15 claim was therefore dismissed.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal held that giving the wrong form was unwanted conduct and that it was related to disability because it arose in the context of an attempt to assist the claimant with occupational health support for his depression. However, it found no purpose to violate dignity or create a hostile environment, and no such effect on the claimant that was either proved or reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal considered that it would have been obvious to the claimant that the form had been given by mistake and that Mr Patel had been trying to assist him, so the statutory threshold for harassment was not met. Applying the same reasoning, and without needing to rely on the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal dismissed both claims.