ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002139/2024 Hearing Held at Edinburgh on 27, 28, and October 2025, and Members’ Meeting on December 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Grime Tribunal Member: T Lithgow Mr B Szutor v Skylark Lasers Limited — 2026

The Tribunal allowed all the discrimination complaints to proceed after concluding that it was just and equitable to extend time. It found that the respondent had been able to present a full defence and would suffer little prejudice, whereas excluding the complaints would cause significant prejudice to the claimant. Following consideration of the merits, all of the claimant's claims were dismissed.

The claimant resigned with immediate effect on 6 November 2024 and alleged constructive dismissal. The Tribunal found that the respondent had incorrectly treated him as having resigned in May 2024, but that this was not implemented and arose from a misunderstanding of the position he had communicated. It accepted the respondent's witnesses' evidence that the claimant had repeatedly presented the investors with a choice between replacing the Chair and finding a new CEO. The Tribunal found that the respondent had genuine grounds for addressing his communications, leadership and judgment through its capability procedure; that the procedure and appeal were fairly conducted; and that the warning and leadership coaching were authorised and did not vary his contractual terms. It identified no fundamental breach or conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, and therefore found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed.

The claimant relied on migraines as a disability. The Tribunal found that he had not proved a substantial, long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities: the evidence principally concerned occasional effects associated with long-haul flights, his absence record was not significant, and the condition was not shown to be more than relatively minor and sporadic at the material time. It therefore found that he was not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, while also considering the remaining disability issues on their merits.

The direct age and disability discrimination complaints concerning the capability process and leadership coaching were dismissed. There was insufficient evidence that the claimant's three former-CEO comparators were in materially comparable circumstances. The Tribunal found that coaching was required because of concerns about the claimant's performance and acknowledged inexperience as a CEO, not because of age or disability, and that coaching was intended to assist his performance. For the age claim, it also found that securing suitable communication skills for the CEO was a legitimate aim and that leadership coaching was a proportionate means of achieving it.

The respondent had guidelines that staff should travel economy class where possible, with variations agreed in advance. The Tribunal found that this practice was not applied to the claimant in the alleged manner because he was permitted to travel in business or first class while medical evidence was obtained. It therefore found no relevant disadvantage and dismissed the indirect age discrimination complaint. It also dismissed the reasonable-adjustments complaint because the claimant was not disabled, the alleged travel requirement was not applied to him, and he was not shown to have been forced to travel economy class, including for the October 2024 United States trip.