Mr F Rotaru v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2026

Mr Rotaru's unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. They were not pursued at the final hearing, and the Tribunal made no findings on them. GXO Logistics UK Limited accepted that Mr Rotaru's orthopaedic foot condition was a disability within the Equality Act 2010.

The protected-disclosure detriment claim failed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Rotaru made the alleged verbal reports on or around 17 September 2023 about an altered audit score or incomplete compliance checks. As he had not proved that the alleged disclosures were made, he had not established a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal therefore did not need to decide the public-interest, reasonable-belief or causation issues.

The flexible-working detriment claim also failed. Mr Rotaru made a flexible-working request in October 2020, but the Tribunal found no causal link between that request and the capability process begun in June 2024 or his dismissal in August 2024. It found that the capability process arose from his absence record and limited ability to undertake picking duties, not from the request made more than three years earlier.

The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim succeeded. The Tribunal found that the capability process culminating in dismissal was unfavourable treatment, despite the dismissal later being overturned on appeal. The treatment was because Mr Rotaru could undertake only limited picking duties, which arose in consequence of his disability. The Respondent knew about the disability and the resulting limits.

The Respondent established legitimate aims, including running the warehouse efficiently, meeting client demands, maintaining productivity and retaining workforce flexibility. It did not, however, show that the capability process and dismissal were proportionate. The Tribunal found that it had not made sufficient enquiries into less discriminatory alternatives and that its consideration was materially shaped by its internal restrictions quota. The successful appeal, which led to Mr Rotaru's reinstatement with about two to three hours of picking per shift and alternative duties, supported the finding that a less discriminatory option was available.

The reasonable-adjustments claim failed because the agreed provision, criterion or practice was the requirement to meet DCPM or KPI performance targets while picking. The Tribunal found that Mr Rotaru was never put through performance management or capability proceedings for failing to meet those targets. His capability process concerned his ability to undertake and sustain picking duties and his related absences, so the alleged substantial disadvantage caused by the identified provision, criterion or practice was not established. No remedy was awarded in this judgment; remedy for the successful section 15 claim was reserved for a hearing on 10 September 2026.