Claimant v Arriva Rail London Ltd

The tribunal found that the Claimant's comparator (Mr Fazzlurrahman) was not a valid comparator because he requested leave in a non-peak period in weekly blocks, whereas the Claimant requested individual days during peak Christmas period. The tribunal was satisfied that Ms Stone, Mr Patel and Ms Allen would have acted the same way regardless of race; their actions had nothing to do with the Claimant's race.

The Claimant withdrew his allegations of disability-arising discrimination (s.15) and harassment related to disability against Ms Stone. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal.

The tribunal found that the refusal of parental leave in December 2023 was not because of the Claimant's absence in 2021/22 (the 'something arising'). Ms Allen dealt with the 2023 request on its own facts; the events of 2021/22 played no part in her thinking. Therefore the claim of disability-arising discrimination failed because the 'something arising' did not cause the unfavourable treatment.

The tribunal found no evidence that Ms Allen's advice to postpone parental leave was related to disability. Additionally, there was no evidence her purpose was to violate dignity or create a hostile environment, nor was it reasonable for her advice to have that effect. The Claimant's upset did not meet the high threshold required for harassment.

The tribunal found that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of disability by February 2024. The PCP (MFA policy trigger points) put the Claimant at substantial disadvantage because his disability made him more likely to be absent and at risk of sanctions. Mr Patel should have referred the Claimant to OH and adjusted the trigger points. It was reasonable to adjust the thresholds to three absences/eight days in thirteen weeks, or seven absences/fifteen days in fifty-two weeks. The Respondent failed to make this reasonable adjustment.