Miss Tewkesbury For the v Mr Brotherton — 2019

The tribunal heard six consolidated cases brought by Miss Helen Tewkesbury and Mr Dayle Tewkesbury against CPM Field Marketing Limited. It found that Miss Tewkesbury had a musculoskeletal disability and dyslexia, and that Mr Tewkesbury had dyslexia, but all claims failed. In doing so, the tribunal referred to the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the Igen/Barton guidance, and Project Management Institute v Latif on reasonable adjustments, together with the statutory tests for sections 15, 18, 20, 21, 26 and 27.

On Miss Tewkesbury's claims, the tribunal found CPM did not have actual or constructive knowledge of her disability before 2 September 2016. References she had made to physical difficulties were not linked to a disability, and administrative requests such as a disabled parking space for conferences did not amount to knowledge in context. The 2016 reasonable adjustments claim therefore failed, and the later discrimination arising from disability allegations also failed because the tribunal found they had not been adequately particularised and it could not identify the relevant 'something arising in consequence of disability' or the alleged unfavourable treatment.

The tribunal rejected Miss Tewkesbury's victimisation case as well. It found that the 22 August 2016 grievance was not a protected act, while the 18 August 2016 complaint referring to disability discrimination was a protected act, but the meetings, emails and warning of possible disciplinary action were not because of that protected act. It found the difficult 31 August 2016 meeting was largely the result of Miss Tewkesbury's own conduct, and that the removal of Incomm work followed reasons unconnected with victimisation. Her later reasonable adjustments complaint also failed because CPM took reasonable steps to complete a risk assessment in 2018, and the process could not be completed because she refused to cooperate.

On Mr Tewkesbury's claims, the tribunal found that the non-allocation of Mars Pets at Home and Incomm work did not amount to harassment, and that the one reference to dyslexia did not violate his dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. His discrimination arising from disability allegations were dismissed for lack of adequate particularisation. His reasonable adjustments claim failed because the requested training point was unique to him and was not treated as a general PCP, and in any event he was not found to be at a substantial disadvantage. His victimisation claim failed because the Access to Work request in April 2017 was a protected act, but no detriment or causal connection was proved. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.