Claimant v Veritas Asset Management LLP

Tribunal found the Claimant did not establish that unfavourable treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability. The bonus reduction was caused by the Claimant not performing significant work in 2022, not by the disability itself. Pay reduction was because of the need to trigger income protection insurance, not disability. Deletion of the role arose from the PEX report findings and was not caused by disability or disability-related absence.

Tribunal found the Claimant was not placed at substantial disadvantage by the selection process. He performed well in interviews without requesting breaks or indicating struggle. OH report confirmed he was fit to work and could concentrate for 60-90 minutes. The selection interviews were not the sole assessment — his past performance was considered. The adjustments sought (being automatically assigned the role, trial period) were not reasonable for a specialist, regulated, high-level role requiring extensive risk experience the Claimant lacked.

Tribunal found the Claimant's letter of 10 January 2023 was not a protected act: it did not allege breach of the Equality Act, just disappointment at bonus reduction. The 21 March 2023 meeting was accepted as a protected act. However, the Tribunal found no detriment was caused by protected acts. The reorganisation and role deletion predated or were independent of the protected acts. The Respondent genuinely wanted the Claimant to return but not to the specialist risk role, which was a genuine business decision.