Claimant v Wright Landscapes Limited

Two harassment claims succeeded (allegations 3.1.11 and 3.1.12 relating to being described as 'unwilling' to attend office/sites when in fact he was unable due to disability). Most other disability discrimination claims failed as they were out of time and tribunal declined to extend. One failure to make reasonable adjustments claim succeeded (8.3.5 – excessive workload).

Two specific harassment claims succeeded: allegation 3.1.11 (4 October 2022 email stating claimant 'unwilling' to attend site visits when he was in fact unable due to disability and vulnerability during COVID) and 3.1.12 (4 October 2022 email stating claimant 'unwilling' to come into office). All other harassment claims failed, mostly for being out of time or not meeting the legal test.

All age discrimination claims failed. Most were out of time. Tribunal found no evidence that age was a factor in treatment. The 'turn on your fucking camera' incident and technology issues were found to be part of workplace culture and pandemic-related frustration, not age-related discrimination.

Tribunal found respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments from September 2018 to termination. The PCP of providing excessive workload that could not be completed in claimant's three contracted days put him at substantial disadvantage. Respondent knew of this from September 2018 capability meeting but failed to refer to occupational health, failed to discuss adjustments, and failed to provide realistic workload. This was a clear breach of the duty to adjust.

Claimant entitled to carry forward 6 days from 2020, 8 days from 2021, and 0.5 days from 2022 under Working Time Coronavirus Amendment Regulations 2020. Total 14.5 days outstanding. Respondent paid 7 days, leaving 7.5 days (£907.50) owed. Tribunal declared claim well-founded but made no compensation order as ex gratia payment of £1688.87 already made by respondent wholly eroded the amount due.

Claim for 20% underpayment during furlough (April-September 2020) failed as over two years out of time. Time ran from August 2020 payslip; claim brought December 2022. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have brought complaint in time. Even if in time, claimant failed to establish wages were properly payable or that work claimed had actually been done.

Breach of contract claim for outstanding holiday pay duplicated the Working Time Regulations claim. Having determined the holiday pay issue under WTR jurisdiction, claimant could not double claim the same outstanding amount.