Claimant v Kwik Fit (GB) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably within the meaning of s.13 of the Equality Act 2010 because of his disability when dismissed. The tribunal did not find that the dismissal constituted direct discrimination on grounds of disability.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not discriminated against because of something arising in consequence of his disability within the meaning of s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal concluded that any treatment linked to disability-related circumstances was justified or did not constitute unlawful discrimination.
The tribunal determined that there was no unauthorised deduction from wages. The claimant's claim for unpaid wages or deductions was not established on the evidence.
Facts
Mr Yates, a disabled employee, was dismissed by Kwik Fit (GB) Ltd. He brought claims alleging direct disability discrimination under s.13 of the Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability under s.15, and unauthorised deduction of wages. The case was heard at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal on 28 February 2025. Mr Yates represented himself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all three claims. It found that Mr Yates was not treated less favourably because of his disability when dismissed, that there was no discrimination arising from disability, and that there was no unauthorised deduction from wages. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Practical note
Dismissal of a disabled employee does not automatically constitute disability discrimination; claimants must establish a causal link between the disability and the treatment, and demonstrate less favourable treatment or unjustified discrimination arising from disability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311223/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No