Case 4112335/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Watt and Mr D Frew Mr M McCafferty v Represented by: Ms L Neil - Solicitor Department for Work and Pensions — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112335/2021
- Decision date
- 27 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms M Watt, Mr D Frew
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Watt and Mr D Frew Mr M McCafferty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McCafferty was a continuing Department for Work and Pensions employee working as a Universal Credit Work Coach. The tribunal accepted that he had gastroparesis, which was a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and that the respondent operated an internal Travel to Work policy intended to mirror Access to Work for disabled staff who needed more expensive transport arrangements. The claimant had an occupational health report and a Workplace Adjustment Passport before he started work, and the dispute concerned reimbursement of commuting costs between Glasgow and Saltcoats and when he should be required to attend the office.
The tribunal upheld two section 15 complaints. It found that refusing to pay additional travel costs was unfavourable treatment because of the claimant's need to travel by car arising from disability, and that the refusal was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It also found that not asking him back to the Saltcoats office in June 2021 was unfavourable treatment arising from disability. That complaint was initially out of time, but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable because the delay was short and the claimant had been trying to resolve the matter internally.
On victimisation, the tribunal treated the January 2021 Workplace Adjustment Passport request as a protected act, and also treated the tribunal claim as a protected act. It held that not being asked back in June 2021 was a detriment caused by the reasonable-adjustment request. By contrast, the December 2021 instruction to work full time in the office and the later caseload allocation were found not to be because of either protected act and were dismissed.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded financial loss of £2,370.17. That figure comprised travel-cost compensation calculated on 35p per mile for 105 days at 31 miles each way, with the claimant's normal travel cost treated as nil because the tribunal accepted that he was likely entitled to a free bus pass, plus £91.67 for lost pay during sickness absence caused by the delay in deciding the travel claim. It awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case in the middle Vento band, and £1,176.99 interest on that award from 4 August 2021. The overall monetary award was £18,547.16.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Refusal to pay additional travel costs for commuting by car; the tribunal treated 4 August 2021 as the act date and later found the respondent had effectively refused the application. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint that the claimant was not asked back to the Saltcoats office in June 2021; the tribunal held it was initially out of time but extended time as just and equitable. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Detriment of not being asked back to work in June 2021. The tribunal found the protected act was the January 2021 Workplace Adjustment Passport request; the judgment gives different dates for the later tribunal claim (15 November 2021 at para 45 and 5 November 2021 at para 78). | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | December 2021 instruction to work full time in the office. The tribunal found the real reason was the all-staff office-working direction, not either protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint about a heavier caseload on return from sickness absence. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that this followed the absence and staffing changes, not either protected act. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,547
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,370
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Basildon & Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Hall v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme and another
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
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.