Case 4112604/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112604/2018 Held in Glasgow on October 2018 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Steven McCullagh v Represented by: Mr G Fletcher - Solicitor Analog Republic Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112604/2018
- Decision date
- 11 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge WA Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112604/2018 Held in Glasgow on October 2018 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Steven McCullagh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing took place on 4 October 2018. The respondent had not lodged an ET3 response form and did not attend. The claimant gave evidence and adopted his witness statement and disability impact statement. The tribunal found him to be a credible witness and accepted that he was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 because of mental impairments, namely depression and adjustment disorder, which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day to day activities.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal upheld the claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 because there was no evidence from the respondent that the unfavourable treatment complained of was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It also found that the work requirements imposed by the respondent were a provision, criterion or practice that placed disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage, triggering the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20(3) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that duty was not complied with because no adjustments were made, so the claimant succeeded under section 21(2) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It held that, under section 98(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it was for the respondent to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal, and that it had not done so.
The tribunal did not determine compensation at that hearing. It said it did not have sufficient information to deal with remedy, and that further medical evidence would be needed to support the GP letter of 10 September 2018, to assess when the claimant might be fit for work, and to assess injury to feelings. A hearing on remedy was to be fixed, and the claimant was to provide a revised schedule of loss giving credit for Employment and Support Allowance received.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(1) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within section 6(1) EqA 2010 and upheld claims under section 15 EqA 2010 and for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20(3) and 21(2) EqA 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the work requirements imposed by the respondent were a PCP placing disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage, and that no reasonable adjustments were made. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20(3) Equality Act 2010
- section 21(2) Equality Act 2010
- section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.