Claimant v G & R Electrical Wholesalers Ltd

The tribunal found that the respondent did not know, nor should they have known, that the claimant's illness of Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder could well last 12 months and so constitute a disability until receipt of the claimant's solicitors' letter dated 13 April 2023, some 8 months after the claimant was first signed off. This finding would have prevented other forms of direct discrimination claims from succeeding during the period before the respondent had knowledge.

The tribunal found that in breach of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the respondent discriminated against the claimant arising from his disability by subjecting him to unfavourable treatment by failing to hear his appeal which alleged disability discrimination, notwithstanding having given an extension of time for it. The respondent could not justify this position.

The tribunal found that in breach of s.26 of the Equality Act 2010, the respondent harassed the claimant relating to his disability by failing to hear his appeal which alleged disability discrimination, notwithstanding having given an extension of time for it. This was reasonably regarded by the claimant as having the effect of creating an offensive environment for him.

The tribunal found that in breach of s.27 of the Equality Act 2010, the respondent victimised the claimant by failing to hear his appeal which alleged disability discrimination, notwithstanding having given an extension of time for it. The claimant established a prima facie case that this was victimisation for having raised an allegation of disability discrimination. The tribunal rejected the respondent's evidence that the appeal got lost amongst other matters and found the respondent did not show that the fact the claimant had alleged discrimination played no role whatsoever in their failure.

The tribunal found that by failing to hear his appeal, the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. There was no contributory fault of the claimant to that failure. That was down to the respondent alone. There was a 2/3rds chance that a fair-minded independent appeal panel, taking note that the claimant was a disabled person, would have given the claimant a further 3 months to return to work, bearing in mind his 20 years' service.