Claimant v Vallourec Oil & Gas UK Limited

The tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal, but the respondent did not act reasonably under s.98(4) ERA. Consultation was inadequate: plans were not at a formative stage when shared, the claimant was not given sufficient information to meaningfully participate, and by the second meeting the decision had already been made with no genuine openness to alternatives or individual circumstances.

The claimant could not establish preliminary facts that she was treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator because of her disability. The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent viewed her disability adversely or that it influenced the redundancy decision. She was assessed on her perceived capabilities and experience, not her physical limitations. A comparator would likely have been treated the same.

Although the claimant established unfavourable treatment (dismissal) and that her need to work from home arose from disability, the respondent rebutted the claim by showing the real reason was her lack of qualifications and experience for the revised Finance Accountant role, not her remote working requirement or mobility restrictions. The tribunal accepted the respondent genuinely believed she could not perform the combined role.