Mr Muhammad Nazieb v Moores Furniture Limited — 2024

At the preliminary hearing on 16 January 2024, Employment Judge Jaleel considered the respondent's applications to strike out Mr Muhammad Nazieb's disability-related claims. The tribunal recorded that it had a 94-page bundle, that the hearing was remote by CVP, and that no findings of fact were made at this stage beyond the background asserted by the parties.

The judgment summarised the respondent's capability process and the claimant's long-term absence. Mr Nazieb attended welfare and capability meetings, including meetings on 21 February 2023, 27 April 2023 and 7 June 2023. The tribunal noted that he said he could not return to work, that this was supported by medical evidence, that he declined referral to occupational health, and that he did not provide a timeframe for a return. The judge also accepted the respondent's evidence that other employees had been dismissed for capability after absences of between seven months and just under 14 months, which the tribunal said showed a more lenient approach to Mr Nazieb's absence.

Direct disability discrimination was struck out. The judge held that, taking the claimant's case at its highest, there was no reasonable prospect of proving that a hypothetical comparator who did not share the disability but was otherwise in the same circumstances, including an absence of over 16 months and no timeframe for return, would have been treated differently. The tribunal therefore found no reasonable prospect of establishing less favourable treatment because of disability.

The tribunal refused to strike out the claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. It said those claims were fact-sensitive and required oral evidence about the discussions and correspondence during the claimant's absence, including the informal meetings and capability proceedings. For the first two claims the judge said they had little reasonable prospect of success and referred to a deposit order made on the same date. For victimisation, the tribunal noted that the dismissal followed shortly after the 2022 tribunal proceedings and that the relationship between those proceedings and the later treatment would need to be determined at a full hearing. No monetary award was made in this judgment.