G DohertyMr J Burnett v Mr X — 2018

The Claimant was accepted to be a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The case proceeded only on reasonable-adjustments claims under sections 20 and 21, after direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability were not pursued to the final hearing. The tribunal identified the relevant issues as the termination of two periods of detached duty at Glasgow Airport, parking during the second period, and the provision of adapted seating. The majority and minority differed on whether the requirement to work in Birmingham rather than Glasgow put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, with the majority finding that it did and the minority treating the disadvantage as flowing from the Claimant's personal choice to base his life in Glasgow.

On the first detached duty, ending on or about 1 March 2016, the majority held that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment. It found that continuing the detached duty in Glasgow would have avoided separating the Claimant from his social and medical support and would have alleviated the disadvantage identified by the occupational health evidence. The tribunal also rejected the Respondent's reliance on complaints and alleged conduct issues as a reason to end the adjustment, finding the investigation of those matters insufficient to justify withdrawal of the detached duty. Although the complaint was about nine months out of time, the tribunal extended time as just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claim concerning the end of the second detached duty on or about 1 February 2017 was dismissed. The tribunal found that the Respondent did not change the Claimant's place of work at that point and that the only reason he was not attending Glasgow was that he had been suspended pending a disciplinary investigation. The parking complaint also failed: the tribunal held that the Respondent took all reasonable steps to obtain a parking space and that a suitable space was secured shortly before the Claimant's last day of work in January 2017. The tribunal made no recommendation under section 124 because it did not consider one appropriate.

The seating claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the Claimant had previously required reinforced, adjustable seating at Birmingham and that the same adjustment was needed in Glasgow. It held that no adapted chair was provided during the first detached duty, and during the second detached duty the chair supplied was broken and dirty and was unsuitable for work in the immigration booths. The award for the discrimination findings was PS6,500 plus PS1,158 interest for the first termination and PS850 plus PS146 interest for the seating failures, making a total award of PS8,654.