Mr W Paton v Represented by Mr P Santoni - Solicitor Redstones Hotel and 3 others — 2020

The claimant, Mr W Paton, had worked at the Redstones Hotel for a number of years and was employed by the second respondent when the hotel was being run by that company. The tribunal found that, on 22 January 2019, the third respondent told him not to come back to work after a meeting in which the third respondent referred to the claimant's stoma and to him 'receiving treatment'. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the claimant's employment continued beyond that date or that the fourth respondent became liable through a later transfer of the employment relationship.

On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 22 January 2019 and that he was employed by the second respondent at that time. It was not persuaded that there was any potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and said that, if it had been necessary to decide fairness under section 98(4), it would have found the respondent acted unreasonably because there was no fair procedure. The tribunal was also not persuaded that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. No award was made on the unfair dismissal claim because the second respondent had been dissolved, although the tribunal set out the figures it would have awarded if that had not occurred.

On disability discrimination, the claimant did not argue that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010; his case was that the third respondent perceived him to be disabled and treated him less favourably for that reason. The tribunal accepted that the third respondent believed the claimant had a physical impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect, questioned his ability to do the job, and refused to allow him back to work because of that perceived condition. It held that this amounted to direct discrimination under section 13, and that the third respondent was personally liable as a director under section 110. The tribunal awarded £7,774.20 for financial loss and £2,000 for injury to feelings, with the latter assessed by reference to the Vento guidelines. The first respondent was dismissed as not a legal entity, the second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings as a dissolved company, and the fourth respondent was found not liable for unfair dismissal or discrimination.