Claimant v FDM Group Limited

Tribunal found claimant made one protected disclosure on 8 September 2022 to Emily Canning regarding alleged breach of Agency Worker Regulations. One detriment (threat to replace claimant) was made out on the facts but claim was dismissed for being outside the time limit. It was reasonably practicable for claimant to bring claim in time. All other alleged detriments either did not occur or were not because of the protected disclosure but because of the claimant's own misconduct.

Tribunal found the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure on 8 September 2022 when he told Emily Canning that FDM was breaching Agency Worker Regulations. Other alleged disclosures did not meet the legal test. One detriment was established on the facts (threat to replace him) but the claim failed on jurisdiction (time limit). The detriment was not causally related to the disclosure in any event.

Claimant lacked qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal. Automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing failed because tribunal found sole reason for dismissal was claimant's misconduct: failing to follow respondent's instructions and sending Letter Before Action to Naima Masud from FDM email address. Dismissal was entirely unrelated to protected disclosure.

Sole reason for dismissal was the claimant's misconduct (failing to follow instructions and sending Letter Before Action from FDM email), not the protected disclosure. Claim failed.

Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of sex. The claimant was not accused of sexual harassment; he was investigated for alleged inappropriate comments. Treatment was because of his own conduct, not his sex. Comparisons with Naima Masud failed because circumstances were not materially the same. All allegations failed.

Tribunal found that the respondent's actions (suspension, investigation, dismissal, etc.) were not related to the claimant's sex. They were related to his conduct. Even where conduct occurred, it did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating hostile environment related to sex. All allegations failed.

Claimant's belief in modesty was found to be a protected philosophical belief. However, tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of that belief or lack of religion. Treatment was because of claimant's conduct, not his belief. All allegations failed.

Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not related to the claimant's belief in modesty or lack of religion. They were related to his conduct. Even where conduct occurred, it did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating hostile environment related to belief. All allegations failed.

Tribunal found that respondent's failure to condemn or further investigate comment by Steven Thavendran ('where's your black ass') was not less favourable treatment. Claimant had indicated he did not want matter taken further. Allegation not made out on facts. Claim failed.

Claimant raised comment by Thavendran not because he was offended but to deflect from allegations against him. He indicated he did not want matter taken further. Respondent's failure to act was exactly what claimant wanted, so could not be 'unwanted conduct'. All allegations failed.

Claimant made protected act on 24 October 2022 when he complained about malicious weaponisation of sexual harassment allegations. However, all alleged detriments either did not occur or were not because of the protected act but because of claimant's own conduct. All allegations failed.

Tribunal found claimant was disabled by Post Traumatic Embitterment Disorder from October 2022. However, respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of disability until very late (mid-November at earliest). Most alleged PCPs and disadvantages not made out. Where made out, no duty arose because respondent lacked knowledge. Suggested adjustments were not reasonable. All claims failed.

Claim was for unfavourable treatment arising from disability under s.15 EqA, not direct discrimination. Tribunal found claimant was treated unfavourably for something arising from disability (his confrontational behaviour arising from PTED). However, treatment was justified as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim of maintaining appropriate workforce behaviour and client relationships. Claim failed.