Claimant v Apple Retail UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claim for unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. The tribunal determined that the dismissal was fair and within the band of reasonable responses available to the employer.
The tribunal found the claim for discrimination arising from disability was not well-founded and dismissed it. While the claimant was disabled due to ADHD, the tribunal concluded that the treatment complained of did not amount to unlawful discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal found the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well-founded and dismissed it. Despite finding the claimant was disabled by ADHD, the tribunal determined that the respondent had not failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal found the claim for harassment on the ground of disability was not well-founded and dismissed it. The tribunal determined that the conduct complained of did not constitute harassment related to the claimant's disability.
Facts
Mr Ellis brought claims against Apple Retail UK Ltd for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal heard evidence over four days. A preliminary issue was whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant alleged he was disabled due to ADHD and depression/anxiety.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled due to ADHD but not due to depression and/or anxiety. All claims were dismissed as not well-founded. The unfair dismissal claim failed, and the discrimination claims (discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment) were all unsuccessful.
Practical note
A tribunal may find an employee disabled for one condition but not others, and even where disability is established, discrimination and unfair dismissal claims can still fail on their merits if the employer's actions were justified and reasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400684/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister