Cases1804075/2024

Claimant v Chicken Cabins Ltd

13 May 2025Before Employment Judge JM WadeLeedsin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£16,200

Individual claims

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability. The respondent was under a duty to make adjustments and failed to do so, placing the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons.

Direct Discrimination(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in connection with his disability. The treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and therefore constituted discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.

Facts

Mr Burcica, a disabled employee of Chicken Cabins Ltd, brought claims of disability discrimination. He required the assistance of an interpreter at the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence over two days regarding the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability and unfavourable treatment related to his disability.

Decision

The tribunal unanimously found in favour of the claimant on both disability discrimination claims. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from his disability. The tribunal awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings plus £1,200 interest.

Practical note

Employers must proactively consider and implement reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, and avoid treating employees unfavourably because of matters arising from their disability, even where there is no termination of employment.

Award breakdown

Injury to feelings£15,000
Interest£1,200

Vento band: middle

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20Equality Act 2010 s.21

Case details

Case number
1804075/2024
Decision date
13 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No