Claimant v Amey Services Limited

Tribunal found claimant was disabled by symptoms of long covid within the period March to July 2022. Respondent conceded disability at other relevant times.

Withdrawn by claimant during the hearing

Withdrawn by claimant during the hearing

Tribunal found claimant did not prove less favourable treatment or that treatment was because of disability. Lower pay award of 1.25% (not 4.21%) was to address pay disparity with other bid writers. Claimant was highest paid bid writer at £47,623.80, over £10,000 more than next highest. No disability-related reason found.

Tribunal found multiple alleged PCPs were either not applied (e.g. claimant was never pushed to meet phased return hours) or did not put claimant at substantial disadvantage (e.g. APMP training not offered during phased return was reasonable adjustment already). Claimant never expressly told manager he could not manage phased return or requested permanent change.

Tribunal found alleged unfavourable treatment either did not occur (e.g. being made to work back medical appointment hours) or was not because of something arising from disability. APMP training refusal was reasonable management during phased return. Settlement discussion at welfare meeting did not trap claimant into unfavourable settlement.

Tribunal found unwanted conduct in delayed explanation for pay rise (finally given June 2022) but claimant did not prove this related to disability. Other alleged harassment (being pushed on hours, duties, medical appointments) failed on facts or on establishing relationship to disability. Tribunal found claimant's account unreliable where not supported by contemporaneous documents.

Alleged PCPs about grievance accompaniment either not applied or did not put claimant at disadvantage. Claimant knew from experience he could bring partner to appeal hearing if he asked, as he was allowed (though did not use) at grievance hearing. No group disadvantage shown.