Mr. S Taylor v Asda Stores Limited — 2025

Mr Taylor worked as a customer delivery driver until a 2021 stroke left him with severe visual impairment and an inability to drive. The tribunal found that the respondent managed his absence poorly: it did not properly follow its healthcare leave process, did not discuss the occupational health reports with him, contact was mostly reactive to his own visits, and meaningful vacancy searches only began late in January 2023. The Grimsby stores were subject to a recruitment freeze save for limited key or seasonal roles, and the available roles identified were either driving roles, temporary seasonal posts, management posts, a pharmacist role, or security roles, none of which were suitable for him.

The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was capability, but that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because there had been no proper consultation, no meaningful use of the occupational health material, and no timely search for alternatives. However, it also found that a fairer process would not have avoided dismissal because there were no suitable vacancies and no obligation to create a role. On that basis, any compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey. The judgment records that Mr Taylor remained entitled to a basic award, but the amount was left to be agreed between the parties, with a remedy hearing only if agreement could not be reached.

All disability discrimination claims were dismissed. For the s.15 discrimination arising from disability complaints, the tribunal accepted that Mr Taylor's absence and inability to drive arose from disability, but held that the failures alleged were either not caused by that disability in the statutory sense or were objectively justified by the respondent's legitimate aim of managing long-term capability and workforce planning. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the pleaded matters were treated as personal matters rather than PCPs, and in any event the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage or reasonable adjustment failure. The harassment claim, based on five comments or incidents at an October 2022 meeting, also failed because the tribunal found they were made in the context of discussing return-to-work options and did not have the purpose or effect required by s.26 EqA 2010.