Member EA Farrell Tribunal Member J Burnett Mr Ryan Smeaton v Represented by: Mr T McGrade - Solicitor Taylor Wimpey UK Limited — 2024

The claimant worked for Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd as a management trainee from 17 September 2018 until 21 March 2023. He was diagnosed with Pompe disease around March 2020 and later underwent fortnightly treatment, which affected his stamina and energy. The tribunal accepted that he was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010. Occupational health reports recommended support including home working, a workstation assessment, stress risk assessment, flexible working arrangements, and consideration of extending the training contract.

On the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal found that the respondent applied two PCPs: a requirement that trainees develop through direct contact with colleagues and site work, and a practice of ending trainees’ employment at the end of the programme if no alternative role was available. It held that both PCPs placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because he had less in-person support than other trainees and was behind in the training programme. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that sending colleagues to his home for training was a reasonable adjustment on the facts, but held that the respondent should have extended the contract to 31 December 2023 and that the delay in arranging the DSE/workstation assessment until September 2022 was also a breach of the reasonable adjustments duty.

The section 15 claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal was not satisfied that the dismissal itself was because of something arising from disability because it did not know who made the dismissal decision or what they knew at the time. It did find, however, that refusing to let the claimant work his notice and instead placing him on PILON was unfavourable treatment caused by the deterioration in his health and was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The direct discrimination and harassment complaints were not insisted upon and were dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent did not prove the reason for dismissal, the February 2023 process was pre-determined, and the tribunal held that the dismissal was not reasonable under section 98(4) ERA 1996. No monetary award is recorded in this liability judgment.