Claimant v North Star Community Trust Ltd

The claimant requested sharing of the departmental Chromebook trolley to avoid excessive walking due to his knee condition. Ms Lattibeaudiere did not respond to the request on 20 July 2021. The tribunal found the non-sharing of equipment was a PCP that put the disabled claimant at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues. The respondent knew of the physical disability and that the trolley was required due to mobility issues. The adjustment was reasonable and would have avoided disadvantage.

The respondent failed to respond to the claimant's request on 20 July 2021 to share the Chromebook trolley. The claimant's need arose from his physical disability (osteoarthritis and knee problems causing mobility difficulties). The tribunal found this was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The respondent could not show it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

On 22 October 2021, the respondent wrote 'There was no evidence on your file regarding a disability and your absence record of depressions does not suggest that there is any underlying disability.' This was unwanted conduct related to disability. The tribunal found this had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a degrading environment. It was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect, particularly given the claimant's ongoing depression and requests for reasonable adjustments.

On 19 July 2021, the claimant was told an amicable solution had been reached regarding his relationship with Ms Lattibeaudiere when it had not. The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove what was said at the meeting or that any unfavourable treatment occurred.

On 22 July 2021, Ms Simpson allegedly failed to take action when the claimant complained of an injury from pushing a laptop trolley. The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove he informed Ms Simpson of an injury on that date, and found the respondent did take some action (calling first aiders, investigating the trolley).

On 31 January 2022, the claimant was allegedly not supported when he requested ACAS mediation. The tribunal found the treatment was not because of something arising in consequence of disability, but because the claimant was formally grieving and mediation was not appropriate at that stage of the grievance procedure.

The claimant received delayed responses (until 21 February 2022) to queries about using information from previous grievances in the sickness absence process. The tribunal found this was not unfavourable treatment and was not because of something arising from disability, but due to the complexity of the issues raised.

On 25 February 2022, the claimant's request for an investigation report into an allegation he made a racist comment was denied. The tribunal found the respondent's disciplinary procedure did not require sharing investigation reports where no disciplinary hearing proceeded, so there was no unfavourable treatment.

Failure to hold an informal grievance meeting requested on 7 July 2021. The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove unfavourable treatment as there was no evidence the meeting was unreasonably declined, and the claimant escalated to a formal grievance shortly after.

The respondent failed to hear grievances against Marino Charalambous and Wendy Bowstead sent on 22 July 2022. The tribunal found this was unfavourable treatment but not because of something arising from disability. The failure was because HR erroneously considered the issues identical to the appeal hearing matters.

On 24 January 2022, the claimant was issued a first written warning due to absence as a result of depression. The tribunal found the treatment was because of something arising from disability (long-term absence), but it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of managing absence and maintaining operational requirements.

The claimant was invited to disciplinary meetings because of raising his voice on 8 and 30 March 2022. The tribunal found this was because of something arising from disability (dramatic acute bursts of aggression linked to anxiety/depression), but investigating and proceeding to disciplinary hearing was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining acceptable standards of conduct.

On 18 May 2022, the respondent allegedly refused to engage with the claimant's attempts to refer to his mental state when agitated in meetings. The tribunal found no such meeting took place on that date and there was no refusal to engage at the 30 March 2022 meeting.

The requirement to attend a disciplinary hearing on 14 June 2022 was alleged as a PCP. The tribunal found the claimant requested written correspondence as a reasonable adjustment, which was granted. Requiring answers via written questions did not put him at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues.

The requirement for Elaine Marie Lattibeaudiere to be the claimant's co-tutor was alleged as a PCP. The tribunal found this was not a PCP but a one-off decision. Even if it were, the claimant failed to prove substantial disadvantage as the evidence suggested workplace relationship difficulties rather than disability-related disadvantage.

Not being given full details of disciplinary allegations at investigation stage was alleged as a PCP. The tribunal found the claimant was given full details before the disciplinary hearing and that the investigation stage disclosure was adequate and in line with procedure.

Appeal hearings being held on Trust property was a PCP that put the claimant at substantial disadvantage (risk of triggering adverse mental reaction). However, the respondent took reasonable steps by offering different buildings, different sites, and ultimately agreeing to hold the appeal remotely. It was not reasonable to expect the respondent to hire external venues.

Requiring answers to questions from Mr Charalambous (actually Ms Ilenbarenemen) in July 2022 was alleged as a PCP. The tribunal found written questions were the adjustment the claimant had requested per Occupational Health advice. Being given 11 days to answer 14 questions did not place him at substantial disadvantage.

The claimant was dismissed on 22 July 2022 for gross misconduct. The tribunal found by majority (2-1) that this was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (dramatic acute bursts of aggression caused by anxiety/depression), but that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining acceptable conduct standards. The minority view was that more sympathetic approach was required given the disability context.

On 8 October 2021, the claimant was informed he would face disciplinary action for alleged racist remarks. The tribunal found this was not unwanted conduct related to disability but a necessary step in investigating alleged misconduct.

Being invited to a disciplinary hearing on 8 October 2021 regarding alleged racist remarks was not unwanted conduct related to disability but part of a necessary disciplinary process.

On 17 December 2021, the claimant was found not to have made racist statements but was not given a copy of the investigation report. The tribunal found the disciplinary procedure did not require sharing investigation reports where no hearing proceeded, so this was not harassment.

On 17 January 2021 (likely 2022), the claimant was told that proving Oveta McInnis was not telling the truth was not relevant to his grievance against Arthur Barzey. The tribunal found this statement was accurate in law and not unwanted conduct related to disability.

Refusing to acknowledge the claimant was raising valid points during discussions or to produce evidence was alleged as harassment. The tribunal found this allegation too vague and unproven.

The dismissal was substituted on appeal (13 December 2022) with a final written warning for 18 months. The tribunal found by majority that this was unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability (dramatic bursts of aggression), but was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The minority view was that a final warning for 18 months was disproportionate given the disability context.

The claimant was dismissed on 6 February 2023 for capability (long-term absence). The tribunal found by majority (2-1) that the dismissal was fair: the respondent genuinely believed the claimant could not perform his duties, adequately consulted, carried out reasonable investigation including up-to-date medical evidence, could not reasonably wait longer, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The minority view was that the respondent failed to adequately consult, resumed absence management too quickly after reinstatement, and should have explored alternative working opportunities at other schools in the Trust.

The dismissal on 6 February 2023 was because of something arising from disability (long-term absence/inability to return to work). The majority found it was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of requiring employees to attend work and fulfil duties, given 18 months absence and the claimant's stated inability to work with key personnel. The minority view was that the dismissal was not proportionate as the respondent failed to explore alternative employment opportunities within the Trust.