Claimant v Sky UK Limited

Tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy, a potentially fair reason. The redundancy process was fair: collective consultation took place, sixteen agreed selection criteria were applied, and individual consultation meetings held. The claimant had the opportunity to discuss selection criteria but chose not to. The respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses.

Tribunal found the claimant was not allocated less meaningful work or excluded from meetings, and one-to-ones were rearranged not cancelled. The claimant did not establish a prima facie case. Even if burden shifted, the respondent provided non-discriminatory explanations: EH was also a qualified Solutions Architect; work allocation was based on business need; phased return recommended gradual workload increase.

Tribunal found several acts of unfavourable treatment (performance ratings 2021-2023, redundancy selection, dismissal, grievance handling) but concluded none were because of 'something arising' from disability. The respondent was only aware of the specific traits from 17 June 2024, after most acts occurred. No evidence that performance ratings, redundancy scoring, or dismissal were because of homeworking or the listed traits.

Tribunal accepted two PCPs were applied (performance appraisal criteria and redundancy scoring matrix) but found no substantial disadvantage had been identified in the list of issues or evidence. Without identification of substantial disadvantage, the tribunal could not conclude the proposed adjustments (weekly one-to-ones, adjusted job description, discounting disability effects in scoring) were reasonable steps the respondent had a duty to take.

Tribunal accepted the respondent applied the PCPs (performance criteria and redundancy matrix) to the claimant and others. However, the list of issues did not identify the particular disadvantage the PCPs put those with the claimant's disability at compared to those without. No evidence was led about particular disadvantage, so the claim could not succeed.

The alleged harassing conduct (allocation of less meaningful work, exclusion from meetings, cancelled one-to-ones) was found not to have occurred. The tribunal did not find that any of the asserted conduct had taken place.

The protected act (grievance on 28 November 2024 alleging discrimination) was accepted. Two detriments were found: time taken to investigate grievance and not investigating all complaints under grievance policy. However, tribunal found these were not because of the protected act but because the respondent followed its grievance policy and provided acceptable explanations for timeline. The early workplace exclusion was not a detriment as claimant agreed to it.