Tribunal Member N Elliot Tribunal Member A McMillan Mr B McCluskey v Represented by: Mr J Komorawski Advocate Glasgow Life — 2019

The claimant pursued only a reasonable adjustments claim under s.21 Equality Act 2010, based on his sight loss / partial sight. The tribunal applied the statutory duty in s.20 and s.21 EqA, and the reversed burden of proof in s.136 EqA, with reference to Madarassy v Nomura International plc. It also noted the parties' submissions on Tarbuck v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd and Rider v Leeds City Council in relation to whether assessments themselves could amount to adjustments.

On the Ruchazie complaint, the tribunal accepted that asking the claimant to attend without an individual risk assessment or individual PEEP could amount to a PCP, but it found that the substantial disadvantage alleged was not made out. The claimant's contemporaneous emails shortly after the visit showed that his distress was connected to fear about travelling home in the dark, not to the absence of the assessments themselves, so the adjustment claimed would not have addressed the disadvantage relied on.

On the Dennistoun complaint, the tribunal found that standard risk assessments and a generic PEEP were in place and that the claimant had agreed to return there temporarily while adjustments were being explored. It held that any disadvantage identified by the claimant arose from his and his union representative's refusal to proceed with the 20 February 2018 meeting, the failure to attend the rearranged meeting on 26 February 2018, and the resulting choice to take annual leave, rather than from the PCP of being asked to work there without an individual assessment or PEEP.

On the computer equipment issues, the tribunal found on balance that the claimant had been provided with a large print keyboard and a larger screen, and that he was able to deal with emails and undertake some online training. It accepted that specialist software was not yet provided, but found there was no unreasonable delay while the respondent was still assessing the claimant's needs and determining what role he could continue to perform; after the short period in question he no longer had ongoing computer-based duties. All claims were dismissed.