Claimant v Bridewell Consulting Limited

The tribunal found that the respondent did not ignore the claimant's concerns, and that using soft skills targets in KPIs and PMPs was not less favourable treatment. The treatment related to genuine performance concerns, not disability, and was consistent with how others would have been treated.

The tribunal found that while extending the probation period occurred, it was favourable treatment giving the claimant further opportunity. The dismissal was because of disciplinary issues (not logging on during core hours, exaggerated timesheets, working on personal laptop) unrelated to disability. Use of KPI/PMP was not improper.

The tribunal found that while the PCP of expecting soft skills did put the claimant at a disadvantage, it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring clients were addressed correctly and that communication standards were maintained. Other PCPs either did not put the claimant at a disadvantage or were not proved.

The tribunal found on a holistic basis that the respondent endeavoured at all stages to provide achievable reasonable adjustments. The respondent provided substantial extra support, flexible working, referred the claimant to Occupational Health, and sought to identify what it could do. Due to delay in obtaining OH input (attributable to the claimant), the process had not concluded by dismissal. The respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal found that comments by the line manager about misunderstandings and 'don't think about it too deeply' were not unwanted conduct but supportive reassurance. Not following ACAS Code was unwanted conduct but was not related to disability - it was because the claimant had less than two years service so the respondent could ignore ACAS with impunity.

The tribunal found that the claimant's failure to be appointed to the job applied for on 15 November 2024 was not because of a protected act but because he was less qualified than the two shortlisted individuals. Raising the allegation about working hours to HR was not because of a protected act but because of serious disciplinary concerns.

The claimant's notice period during probation was one week. He was paid one week's notice in lieu. The tribunal found the claimant had committed serious misconduct (not logging on with work laptop during core hours, logging on late, presenting exaggerated timesheets, working on personal laptop) which justified dismissal.