V Alexander and E Farrell Mr S Johnstone v - Father Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr Johnstone, was accepted as disabled at all material times and the tribunal recorded disabilities including Asperger’s syndrome, dyslexia, visual stress, PTSD, depression and anxiety. He joined Royal Mail’s Kilmarnock office as a postal apprentice, with an occupational health report received on 9 September 2021 recommending extra time with reading and writing tasks, tinted glasses, phone access, time out if overwhelmed, advance notice of changes, and, if possible, a quiet space for work. The tribunal heard evidence about the 10-day induction, the adjustment arrangements, and the difficulties that arose over parking, study space and the pace of training.

The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the section 15 claim. It found that Mr Lawless’s discussion about whether to seek advice on a previous approach to an employee with Asperger’s was not less favourable treatment and did not exclude the claimant from team meetings. It also found that the claimant was offered several quiet places to study, including an office that could be vacated for him, so there was no unfavourable treatment in relation to a quiet workspace and no sufficient link to something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal further dismissed the interview-related reasonable adjustments claim, holding that the interview did not put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of any interview-related disadvantage before the occupational health report.

The tribunal also dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim based on the pace of work. It found that the claimant was given extra time to carry out duties, including a half route to complete in five hours, and that the evidence did not show a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled workers. The tribunal rejected the harassment claims about parking, facemasks and alleged daily criticism. It found that the parking and mask incidents were ordinary interactions rather than abusive conduct related to disability, and that Mr Lawless was giving supportive coaching rather than daily criticism.

The only claim upheld was the reasonable adjustments claim about parking. The tribunal found there was a practice at the Kilmarnock office of non-blue-badge staff using the staff disabled bays, that the claimant had to park in customer disabled bays, and that this exposed him to extra walking hazards and repeated challenge. It held that a disabled bay in the staff car park should have been made available by 4 October 2021. Remedy was limited to injury to feelings: the tribunal assessed that at £3,000, reduced it by 10% for an unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code, and therefore awarded £2,700, plus £145.32 interest. No recommendations were made.