in-person v Ministry of Defence — 2026

Marcus Bridges' complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded. His claims of direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability were dismissed. The Tribunal held that Mr Bridges was disabled at all material times by stress, anxiety and PTSD; obsessive and compulsive symptoms could be relied on as part of those mental health impairments, but OCD was not found to be a separate disability.

Mr Bridges missed the pass mark for an internal promotion interview on 20 March 2024 by one point. The Tribunal found that he experienced a significant mental health episode during the interview, which affected his performance, including his ability to hold eye contact, speak clearly and structure answers. It found that the episode arose from his disability and probably cost him the mark, or more, which separated success from failure. The Ministry of Defence could reasonably have been expected to know of his disability from 20 May 2024.

The Tribunal accepted that the Ministry's aims of appointing on merit and using a structured selection process were legitimate. It found, however, that the Ministry did not properly consider adjustments to the completed recruitment exercise, maintaining too rigidly that adjustments had to be requested before or during the interview. A prompt re-interview could have been offered and the behavioural scores could have been considered. The Tribunal found the failure of the interview and resulting rejection of the promotion application to be unfavourable treatment because of consequences of Mr Bridges' disability, and not justified.

The Tribunal found that assessing promotion applications through interview and requiring a formal grievance to seek adjustments were PCPs. The interview PCP put Mr Bridges at substantial disadvantage, and the formal-grievance requirement negatively affected his mental health. It found that staff reports could have formed part of an assessment process, a prompt re-interview could have been offered, and the grievance should have been concluded more quickly. It did not find a PCP of generally allowing grievances to be delayed.

For direct discrimination, the Tribunal found that the refusal to adjust the process and requirement to use a grievance procedure arose from rigidity of thinking and indifference to Mr Bridges' position, rather than because of disability. It found the remarks relied on for harassment were innocuous and did not have, or reasonably have, the prohibited effect. The discrimination found breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Mr Bridges resigned because of that breach and had not affirmed the contract. All remedy issues were reserved for a hearing on 11 to 13 January 2027.