Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence

The tribunal found that on each factual allegation the respondent did not treat the claimant less favourably than they would have treated a non-disabled comparator in similar circumstances. The tribunal found no evidence that the alleged perpetrators were motivated by knowledge of the claimant's disabilities. For example, Mr Roberts did not know of the claimant's mental health conditions until December 2021, after many of the alleged incidents occurred.

While some conduct was unwanted, the tribunal found no evidence that any conduct related to the claimant's disabilities. Even where conduct was ill-advised (e.g. pulling rank comment, sharing OH information), the tribunal concluded the conduct was not motivated by or related to the claimant's physical or mental health conditions. The respondent provided non-discriminatory explanations for all conduct.

Where conduct arose in consequence of disability (e.g. sickness absence meetings arising from mental health absences, withdrawal of job offer due to being medically unsupportable), the tribunal found the respondent had legitimate aims including ensuring a safe working environment, managing absences fairly, and ensuring health and safety of staff. The treatment was a proportionate means of achieving these legitimate aims.

The tribunal found the claimant was not put at a substantial disadvantage by the PCP (requirement to work in office during roof repairs in January 2023) compared to non-disabled persons. The disadvantage cited (stress of facing Mr Roberts) was not inherently related to his disabilities but to the grievance outcome. In any event, the claimant did not request working from home as an adjustment, and Mr Roberts was on sick leave throughout the relevant period so there was no risk of encountering him.

The tribunal found the April 2021 email was not a protected act as it did not reference the Equality Act or protected characteristics. The December 2021 grievance was also not a protected act as it was not related to disabilities or protected characteristics. The February 2022 tribunal proceedings were a protected act, but the alleged detriments either predated this protected act (removal of Sennelager team) or were not causally connected to it (non-extension of tour was due to operational restructuring, not the proceedings).