Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

Tribunal found claimant was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression from 28 September 2021, but not by reason of keratoconus at any time. However, all direct disability discrimination complaints failed on their facts — tribunal found the alleged acts did not occur or were not because of disability.

Tribunal found that the claimant's sickness absence was not caused by the respondent's negligence. The respondent tried to help the claimant but he refused cooperation, including refusing occupational health referrals. No unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability was established.

Tribunal found that only two PCPs were applied: requiring employees to manage a substantial workload, and not carrying out risk assessments. The tribunal found the claimant was not placed at substantial disadvantage, or that the respondent had offered reasonable adjustments (e.g. occupational health referrals, reduced hours) which the claimant refused.

Tribunal found that even where conduct was unwanted and related to disability (e.g. welfare meetings, failure to pay additional sick pay), it was not harassment. The conduct was not intended to violate dignity or create a hostile environment, and it was not reasonable for it to have that effect given the respondent's supportive and policy-compliant approach.

Tribunal found the respondent did not commit any repudiatory breach of contract. The alleged breaches either did not occur or the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions. The respondent made extensive efforts to support the claimant, which he refused. No entitlement to resign.