Mr B Uduje, Counsel. For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant had ulcerative colitis and the respondent accepted disability status. The tribunal found that the claimant had a high sickness absence record, that occupational health repeatedly recommended adjustments including access to toilets and, when necessary, working from home, and that the respondent was aware of the disability and the need for adjustments. The redundancy process in 2014 led to notice expiring on 24 September 2014, but the respondent later extended the notice period under a union agreement; the tribunal held that the dismissal was extinguished by that later reinstatement. The tribunal also found that the senior IT support analyst role went to Mark Daley because he was better qualified, and that the decision-maker did not know of the claimant’s disability.

The direct discrimination, victimisation, and reasonable adjustments claims were dismissed. The tribunal found no failure to offer a permanent role because roles had been offered and the claimant did not apply for others; no failure to provide additional support or training because the claimant had not clearly requested the training he relied on and was offered home-based soft-skills training; and no failure to redeploy because the claimant did not apply for the roles available. It did find that the response to the 20 April 2015 email about the senior IT support analyst appointment was inadequate, but it held that this was a grievance-handling failure and not treatment because of disability or because of a protected act. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the respondent operated a fixed-location working practice, but held that the claimant was not shown to be substantially disadvantaged once home-working adjustments were introduced from 4 February 2015, and in any event the complaint was out of time.

On the bonus claim, the tribunal found that the claimant did not receive full bonus for 2010/11 and 2011/12 because disability-related absences were counted. It rejected the respondent’s justification case, holding that attendance could be taken into account for non-disability absence but not in the way applied to disability absence, and it relied on Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer when assessing proportionality. However, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time: the claimant knew of the issue by June 2014, ACAS early conciliation did not start until 1 June 2015, and the tribunal refused to extend time under the just and equitable discretion because no adequate explanation for the delay was given. No monetary award was made.