Case 8000358/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Duguid Tribunal Member Lindsay Mr A Crawford v HM Revenue and Customs — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000358/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Duguid, Tribunal Member Lindsay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Duguid Tribunal Member Lindsay Mr A Crawford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent knew the claimant was disabled by autism, dyslexia, sleep apnoea and mental health conditions. His unfair dismissal claim was in time because it had not been reasonably practicable for him to present it within the primary time limit, and it was presented within a reasonable further period. The discrimination complaints were also allowed to proceed on just and equitable grounds.
The tribunal accepted that conduct was the reason for dismissal, but found the dismissal unfair. The respondent did not reasonably investigate the claimant's explanation that his sleeping and memory issues were linked to medical conditions, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the potential effect of inclusion on the Civil Service internal fraud database. The tribunal also found the respondent lacked reasonable grounds for treating all allegations as gross misconduct, and that proceeding with the disciplinary hearing after the claimant said he had not read the lengthy investigation report because of dyslexia fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
The direct disability discrimination complaint failed because the tribunal found dismissal was because of conduct, not because the claimant was disabled. The s.15 claim succeeded because falling asleep at work arose from medication for the claimant's mental health condition and had a significant influence on the dismissal; summary dismissal for gross misconduct was not found to be a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim.
The reasonable adjustments claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found the e-learning PCP substantially disadvantaged the claimant because of dyslexia and sleep apnoea/somnolence, and that in-person training would likely have alleviated the disadvantage and would have been reasonable. It did not find a failure to provide working computer support packages, and did not find that more than the 100% extra time already provided would have alleviated the disadvantage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, a potentially fair reason, but unfair under s.98(4) ERA because the respondent had not carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, lacked reasonable grounds for treating the conduct as gross misconduct, and dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. | Upheld | — | £5,068 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination based on dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct, not the fact that he was a disabled person. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA was upheld. The tribunal found dismissal was unfavourable treatment and was significantly influenced by the claimant falling asleep during the working day, which arose from medication for his mental health condition. The respondent did not establish that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was upheld in relation to the PCP requiring Compliance Caseworkers to undertake e-learning involving a lot of reading. The tribunal found it would have been reasonable to provide in-person training. Allegations about failure to provide working computer support packages and about more than 100% extra time were not made out. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,875
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,568
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
24 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan
- A v B
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Land Registry v Houghton
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Polkey
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.