Claimant v Wilson James Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim against the 2nd Respondent was struck out because the Claimant was not a contract worker for them under S41 of the Equality Act 2010. He was an employee of the 1st Respondent working at the 2nd Respondent's premises as a customer site, which does not meet the statutory definition of contract worker.
The claim against the 1st Respondent relating to alleged harassment by employees of the 2nd Respondent was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The 1st Respondent could not refuse the 2nd Respondent's requirement that the Claimant work from their premises, and alleged conduct by the 2nd Respondent's managers could not give rise to a claim of disability discrimination harassment against the 1st Respondent.
The tribunal did not permit the amendment to include an unfair dismissal claim, so no formal determination was made. However, the judge indicated that had the amendment been permitted, the claim would have been struck out as the capability dismissal after over 3 months absence with no prospect of return was inevitable and not unfair.
Facts
The Claimant worked as Deputy Site Security Manager for Wilson James Ltd since July 2018, assigned to work at Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd's premises. He was off work from November 2021 due to work-related stress connected to his back problems (accepted as a disability). He complained of bullying and harassment by two employees of the 2nd Respondent relating to their insistence he work from their premises rather than remotely. He was dismissed on capability grounds on 14 February 2022, one week after filing his claim. The tribunal file was mislaid and the case was not progressed until February 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims. The claim against the 2nd Respondent failed because the Claimant was not a contract worker under s.41 of the Equality Act 2010 - he was simply an employee of the 1st Respondent working at a customer's premises. The harassment claim against the 1st Respondent failed because they could not be held liable for the alleged actions of the 2nd Respondent's employees, and had no ability to refuse the customer's requirement that the Claimant work on-site.
Practical note
An employee working at their employer's customer premises is not a 'contract worker' under s.41 Equality Act 2010, and an employer cannot be held liable for discrimination by third-party customer employees when complying with reasonable customer requirements.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302108/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Wilson James Ltd
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Site Security Manager
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No