Claimant v BP Exploration Operating Company Limited

The respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's ADHD or GAD disabilities at the relevant time. Section 15(2) provides a lack of knowledge defence which the respondent successfully established, therefore the claim failed.

The claimant failed to establish valid PCPs meeting the statutory test. The tribunal found the alleged PCPs either were not genuine PCPs (exclusion from investigation was a one-off act), or the claimant failed to prove group disadvantage or that he was put at particular disadvantage (competitive application requirement, OPQ, no written dismissal reasons). The respondent also established justification where applicable.

The respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disabilities at the relevant time. Schedule 8 paragraph 1 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person is not subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments if they did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of the disability.

Multiple harassment allegations all failed. Most involved conduct by Mr de Sousa (an Azule employee) for whom the respondent was not liable. Other allegations (Mr Forder's and Mr Doherty's comments) did not relate to the claimant's disability, did not have the purpose or effect of harassment, and it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the alleged effect. The tribunal found the claimant unreasonably prone to take offence and label comments as harassment when they were not.