Disability Discrimination at Work Leads to £9,710 Tribunal Award

What the Employment Tribunal decision means for employers managing disability and reasonable adjustments

Background

Jonathan Gee (the Claimant) worked for confectionery manufacturer JF Renshaw (the Respondent) for only two months in 2020.

At the time, he was a 30-year-old suffering from ADHD, obsessive–compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and Tourette Syndrome. He lived with his mother.

The Respondent was also aware of the Claimant’s medical conditions following an occupational health referral in October 2020.

In September 2020, there was an incident whereby the Claimant swore at a colleague because he felt that she was not pulling her weight.

In November 2020, there was another incident where he referred to another colleague as a “lazy bastard”. At an Occupational Health meeting, it was concluded that the outbursts were believed to be something that arose from the Claimant’s disability.

At the Occupational Health meeting, a number of adjustments were suggested, including:

• Giving the Claimant clear instructions of expectations at work.
• Allowing the Claimant to report what he perceived to be incorrect practices.
• Providing “Time-out” sessions where the Claimant could remove himself from situations where he felt overwhelmed.
• Ten-minute meetings with his manager in the middle and at the end of each shift.

A letter was sent out by Occupational Health to the Claimant in November 2020, recommending these adjustments. However, on the same day, the Head of Manufacturing sent the Claimant a letter informing him that his employment had been terminated with one week’s notice.

The reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment as set out in the letter of termination was that the Respondent needed to release some of its temporary staff and this included the Claimant and another employee.

The Claimant then applied for a job with the same company in June 2021 and then again in June 2023, and both applications were rejected by the Respondent.

It was the Claimant’s case that his dismissal was direct disability discrimination and that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments. He maintained that both job rejections were also direct disability discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal claim

The Claimant submitted his employment tribunal claim on 13 November 2023, which was outside the limitation period for the original dismissal and 2021 job application rejection.

However, the employment tribunal found that by rejecting the Claimant’s job offer in June 2023, the Respondent had discriminated against him because of his disability, and it had treated him less favourably than a hypothetical comparator without a disability.

Judge Callum Cowx, sitting at the Liverpool employment tribunal, found that the letter of dismissal issued the same day as the Occupational Health report was no coincidence. He had also noted the impact that the Respondent’s rejection had had on the Claimant and that it treated his disabilities “as too much of a burden”.

He noted that the Claimant “felt upset, anguish and anger, to such a degree that he self-harmed by biting, burning or stabbing the back of his hand”. Further, “The job rejection in 2023 compounded his sense of injustice which is part of his condition and increased his sense of worthlessness and that society would not recognise the nature of his condition and make allowances for him”.

The Judge also noted that the Claimant “feels he will always be judged and misunderstood by fellow employees and the discrimination by the Respondent has contributed to this and he was still feeling the effect of the discrimination over two and a half years later”.

The Claimant was awarded £8,000 plus interest, resulting in an award of £9,710.00.

Final thoughts

It seems that the Judge saw through the Respondent’s arguments and could see that the real reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was directly attributable to his disabilities.

The Respondent was also placed on notice that the Claimant was disabled and its Occupational Health adviser made clear recommendations to provide reasonable adjustments, which unfortunately were not implemented.

It is likely that the Respondent believed that as the Claimant had less than two years’ service, he could not pursue a claim for unfair dismissal.

The lesson for employers is to follow fair procedures when dealing with misconduct and discrimination issues and to be aware of falling into the discrimination trap, as the Respondent did in this case. It was a costly exercise and has also resulted in adverse publicity for the Respondent.

As ever, we recommend seeking timely legal advice to address these types of issues in the workplace.

The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only.  They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice.  Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek a solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.