Case 4106865/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K McCall v Rnib — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106865/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K McCall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 30 July 2021, Employment Judge O'Donnell considered RNIB's applications to strike out parts of Mr K McCall's disability discrimination and victimisation claims, and/or to impose deposit orders. No evidence was heard on the substantive dispute, and the tribunal made no findings of fact about what happened. RNIB had conceded that Mr McCall was disabled by reason of right leg and ankle impairments.
The tribunal struck out the victimisation claim under Rule 37(1)(c). It held that Mr McCall had not complied with the January 2021 order requiring him to specify the protected acts relied on, that neither his 22 January 2021 email nor later correspondence identified a protected act within s27 of the Equality Act 2010, and that without that specification RNIB could not have a fair trial. The tribunal considered strike-out proportionate, while noting that the same factual matters could still be pursued as direct disability discrimination.
On the direct disability discrimination allegations, the tribunal refused to strike out the complaint that Mr McCall was not placed on the work rota from June 2020 onwards, but it held that the broad allegation had little reasonable prospects of success and made a Rule 39 deposit order. It relied on the bundle showing Mr McCall rostered from July 2020 to February 2021, while accepting there might still be a narrower issue around a period in June 2020. It also refused to strike out the allegation that Janice Bain refused to speak to him for a month, finding RNIB now had enough information to identify the period from 7 June 2020 to the later meeting with Ms Bain.
Taking the case as a whole, the tribunal granted a £1,000 deposit order under Rule 39. It said the claim as a whole had little reasonable prospects because of possible time-bar issues, causation difficulties arising from the earlier move to a casual contract after Mr McCall sought to be excused from driving duties, and the lack of specification of the reasonable adjustments said to be required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for failure to comply with the January 2021 order requiring specification of the protected acts relied on. The tribunal held that Mr McCall's 22 January 2021 email and later correspondence did not identify a protected act within s27 Equality Act 2010, that a fair trial was not possible, and that strike-out was proportionate. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused to strike out the disability discrimination allegations that Mr McCall was not placed on the work rota from June 2020 onwards and that Janice Bain refused to speak to him for a month. It held the rota allegation had little reasonable prospects in its broad form and made a Rule 39 deposit order, but refused strike-out of the Bain allegation because the respondent had enough information to identify the relevant period. It also made a £1,000 deposit order on the claim as a whole. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 39
- s27 Equality Act 2010
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Anyanwu and anor v South Bank Student Union and anor
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Bolch v Chipman
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
- RBS v Ashton
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.