Cases3314505/2022

Claimant v GXO Logistics UK II Limited (Formerly Clipper Logistics plc)

31 July 2025Before Employment Judge QuillWatfordin person

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)partly succeeded

The tribunal found that the Respondent unreasonably delayed discussing further amended duties for the claimant following the occupational health report issued in May 2022. This delay (from shortly after 4 May 2022 until 7 September 2022) was found to be less favourable treatment because of race. All other allegations of direct race discrimination failed, including complaints about performance, shouting, telling off, communication issues, and treatment by supervisor Ms Radimonaite.

Indirect Discrimination(race)failed

The tribunal found that the Respondent did not apply the alleged PCP of 'ignoring or treating less patiently workers who did not speak English well'. The claimant failed to prove that Ms Radimonaite had such a practice. Therefore the indirect discrimination claim failed on the facts.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)partly succeeded

The tribunal found that the Respondent applied three PCPs which put the claimant at substantial disadvantage because of her disability: sending her to heavy warehouse tasks, requiring heavy lifting (up to 15kg), and requiring standing while working in labels. The Respondent knew or ought to have known of the disadvantage from close to the start of employment. The tribunal found it was reasonable for the Respondent to have ensured colleagues assisted the claimant with identifying items not too heavy for her and to have enabled her to spend more time on labelling tasks. The Respondent failed to take these steps. The claim for reducing contact with Ms Radimonaite failed as this would not have reduced the disadvantage from the PCPs.

Facts

The claimant, a Polish national with limited English, worked as a Warehouse Operative for a logistics company from November 2019. She had a disability (a specified medical condition admitted by the respondent) which limited her ability to do heavy lifting. In December 2021 she provided a doctor's letter requesting amended duties due to her condition. A meeting was held in January 2022 but no written record was provided to her supervisor or other managers. She continued to request adjustments. An occupational health referral was made following a meeting in March 2022, with the OH report issued in May 2022. However, no meeting to discuss further adjustments took place until September 2022. The claimant alleged race and disability discrimination by her supervisor and the wider organisation.

Decision

The tribunal upheld one allegation of direct race discrimination: the respondent unreasonably delayed from May to September 2022 in discussing further amended duties following the occupational health report, and this delay was because of the claimant's Polish nationality and/or limited English. The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not ensuring colleagues assisted the claimant with heavy items and by not enabling her to spend more time on less physically demanding tasks. All other discrimination allegations failed. A remedy hearing was scheduled.

Practical note

Employers must act promptly when occupational health reports recommend workplace adjustments, particularly where the employee has limited English and needs assistance arranging meetings; unexplained delays in such circumstances may give rise to an inference of race discrimination even where direct evidence of discriminatory motive is lacking.

Legal authorities cited

Carreras v United First Partners Research [2018] EWCA Civ 323Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Canniffe v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2000] IRLR 555Project Management Institute v Latif [2007] IRLR 579Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd [2006] IRLR 664Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] IRLR 748Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37Onu v Akwiwu and another [2014] EWCA Civ 279Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.109Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.19

Case details

Case number
3314505/2022
Decision date
31 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Warehouse Operative

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep