In person For the v Miss R Dawson, Solicitor — 2025

The tribunal accepted that Mr Gareth Stevenson was disabled by reason of obsessive compulsive disorder and long-term stress, and that those impairments had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities including social interaction, fatigue and concentration. He worked at Toolstation's Exmouth store from 16 January 2017 until dismissal for capability on 6 December 2023. The evidence recorded a long period of sickness absence, phased returns, and a series of adjusted working patterns from 2021 onwards. Occupational health advice repeatedly addressed reduced hours and flexibility, but did not require any specific days such as Mondays or Tuesdays.

By late 2023 the respondent had held a series of capability meetings, considered three occupational health reports, and explored alternatives including alternative work and home working. The tribunal found that the respondent had consulted the claimant throughout and had also considered the effect of his reduced hours on colleagues and the store. At the third capability meeting on 4 December 2023 Mr Prior offered a new arrangement under which the claimant would return to his contractual 20 hours, with four weeks' notice of the rota and notice of changes. On appeal Mr Bellamy reviewed the matter afresh and improved that offer by agreeing four weeks' notice of every rota and of any changes. The claimant did not accept either offer, and his dismissal was confirmed on 6 December 2023 after he had said he did not feel mentally strong enough to deal with the issue. The appeal on 9 January 2024 was rejected.

The harassment claim failed. The tribunal rejected the first four allegations about the 4 December 2023 meeting as not factually correct. It found that the fifth and sixth allegations, concerning continuation of the meeting on 5 December 2023 and the decision to dismiss before the claimant had responded, were factually correct, but they did not meet the statutory test for harassment and were not shown to be related to disability. The seventh allegation, that Mr Wheeler made an obscene gesture from a car on 9 July 2024, was not proved on the balance of probabilities, and the tribunal also said there was no evidence that it related to the claimant's disabilities.

The direct discrimination claim failed because the tribunal accepted Mr Prior's evidence that the dismissal was for capability and the disruption caused by the working pattern, not because the claimant was disabled. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the claimant did not establish that the identified PCPs put him at a substantial disadvantage when compared with non-disabled people: on his own case the issue was not the number of hours, but routine and stability. The tribunal also found that the respondent had already been providing set days and notice, and had offered further rota certainty that would have addressed that need. The section 15 claim failed because, although dismissal was unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability, the tribunal held it was justified by the legitimate aim of operating the store effectively and profitably while considering the work-life balance of the team, and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed under section 98(4) ERA 1996; the tribunal noted that it would have been preferable for Mr Prior to wait a little longer after the 4 December meeting, but found that further delay would not have changed the outcome and that the dismissal remained within the band of reasonable responses. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.