Claimant v Menzies World Cargo Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because: (1) the respondent failed to make specific findings as to whether the claimant's errors were wilful misconduct or capability issues; (2) the claimant was not given advance warning of the investigation interview on 25 August 2022 or the opportunity to be accompanied; (3) the respondent unreasonably failed to obtain updated occupational health advice given the claimant's disability and that the most recent report was over three years old; (4) the disciplinary officer approached the hearing with a closed mind, dismissing out of hand the possibility of redeployment rather than dismissal. These failures were not corrected on appeal.

The claimant failed to establish sufficient primary facts to support an inference of direct discrimination. The comparators relied upon (Ms Atkinson, Mr Ratajek, Mr Ghita) were not appropriate comparators as their circumstances differed materially. The tribunal concluded that a longstanding employee with comparable experience but without the claimant's disability would have been treated identically.

The claimant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that her reported cognitive issues (inability to concentrate and multi-task, selective reading difficulties) arose in consequence of being disabled by reason of Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1). The tribunal concluded these were more likely indicative of learning difficulties present throughout her life, possibly dyslexia, which are associated with but not caused by NF1. The claimant had not pursued claims based on learning difficulties as separate disabilities.

The section 20/21 claims failed because the claimant claimed to have been disadvantaged by the PCPs because of impaired cognitive functioning, which the tribunal found did not arise from her NF1. The tribunal held that cognitive issues may be associated with NF1 but are not symptoms of the condition itself. The only potential exception was a 2010 security breach where anxiety from diagnosis affected concentration, but any claim relating to that incident was substantially out of time.

Multiple harassment complaints failed because the unwanted conduct complained of (failures to implement adjustments, workload issues, disciplinary proceedings) did not relate to the claimant's disability within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no connection between the alleged conduct and the claimant's NF1. Some complaints were also substantially out of time (dating back to 2010) with no explanation for delay and no just and equitable basis for extension.