Claimant v J D Wetherspoon Plc

This claim was brought under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (unfavourable treatment for something arising in consequence of disability) not section 13 (direct discrimination). The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on the section 15 claim but there was no separate direct discrimination claim.

The tribunal found that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments including a phased return to work, altered shift patterns, and reduced hours. The claimant wanted to work Mondays for stock training but the tribunal found the adjustments already made were reasonable and efficacious, and that requiring further changes would have been inconvenient and unreasonable given occupational health support for existing arrangements.

The claimant succeeded on one allegation: that his line manager Mr South made a snide remark on 26 September 2023 saying '100%. I'm signing off for two weeks' in response to an article about sickness absence, which the tribunal found reasonably had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity. Other harassment allegations against Mr Simmons failed as they were not unwanted conduct or did not reasonably have the proscribed effect.

Although the claimant did a protected act (raising a grievance alleging breach of the Equality Act 2010), the tribunal found that the alleged detriments were either not detriments at all, or were not done because the claimant did the protected act. For example, Mr Simmons' failure to address one aspect of the grievance was due to misunderstanding, not victimisation.

Section 15 Equality Act 2010: unfavourable treatment for something arising in consequence of disability. The claimant was issued with a first and final written warning for going absent without leave (AWOL) in late July 2023. The tribunal found this was unfavourable treatment for something (failure to contact the employer) arising from his disability (mental health crisis/nervous breakdown). The respondent had constructive knowledge of disability. The justification defence failed: the tribunal found the punitive approach was disproportionate, inconsistent with the respondent's mental health policy, and that less discriminatory measures (phased return, adjustments) were more effective in achieving the aim of securing attendance.