Member E Farrell Tribunal Member W Muir EF v McQueens Dairies Limited — 2025

The claimant, EF, worked for McQueens Dairies Ltd as a Retentions Adviser from 12 June 2023. The tribunal found she was disabled by reason of ADHD and that the respondent knew of that disability from 20 June 2023. It also found that she identified as black. Her probation was extended on 13 September 2023 and her employment ended on 27 September 2023 after she said she would be about 4.5 hours late to work.

The section 13 disability claim failed because, although the respondent knew of the disability, the tribunal did not find that disability was a reason for the dismissal or any other complained-of treatment. It accepted that the respondent was concerned about lateness, late returns from breaks, call avoidance, sickness absence and the events of 27 September 2023. Even if the claimant's time blindness arose from ADHD, the tribunal found the dismissal would have been the same for a non-disabled person in the same circumstances.

On race, the tribunal held that there were features that raised a prima facie case, including the contrast between the claimant and Mr James Whittaker, the wording that she was not "the correct fit for this business", and some statistical evidence about transfers and dismissals. It nevertheless found that race played no part whatsoever in the decision and that a hypothetical white comparator in the same position would also have been dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the decision was driven by attendance, lateness, call-handling and probation concerns.

The section 15 claim was dismissed even though the tribunal found the dismissal was unfavourable treatment. It held that the relevant lateness and timekeeping issues meant the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of managing sickness absence and ensuring satisfactory client care. The sections 20 and 21 reasonable adjustments claim also failed: the tribunal accepted fixed start times and a no-missed-calls requirement were PCPs that put the claimant and disabled workers at a substantial disadvantage, but it found no reasonable adjustment on the evidence that would have solved the problem, and it found noise-cancelling headphones had in fact been provided.

The section 27 victimisation claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had made the alleged protected act about possible race discrimination involving Erica Francisco or about sexual harassment concerning Person X. It also found there was no adequate causal link between any protected act and the alleged detriments. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.