Claimant v Corriculo Ltd

The tribunal found that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the PCPs put him at a substantial disadvantage. The respondent offered him telephone calls to clarify his experience, which he refused. His lack of relevant work experience was the barrier, not his disability. There was no evidence that the lack of an oral application process disadvantaged him when the issue was his minimum experience threshold.

The tribunal found no factual basis for the claim. The respondent did not impose inflexible timelines—they expressly told the claimant to take the time he needed. The job adverts were not complex, and the claimant, a highly intelligent PhD holder, did not indicate difficulty understanding them at the time. There was no evidence that requiring written applications disadvantaged him given his lack of minimum experience.

The tribunal found no reasonable interpretation of the email thread that showed the respondent was dismissive of the claimant's requests. The respondent addressed each of his reasonable adjustment requests in turn, offered telephone calls with multiple staff members, and reassured him there was no deadline. The claimant refused all offers. The rejection was based on lack of relevant experience, a clear non-discriminatory reason.

The tribunal found that the emails, taken at their highest, could not reasonably amount to unwanted conduct. The respondent addressed the claimant's specific concerns in full in June 2024 exchanges. Earlier generic emails did not warrant personalised responses at the initial sift stage. The claimant did not explain why the alternatives offered were inadequate. There was no conduct that could be said to violate his dignity or create a hostile environment.