Cases2302091/2023

Claimant v Croner-I Ltd

26 February 2025Before Employment Judge TsamadosLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found the complaint of discrimination arising from disability well-founded. The respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)succeeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability. The respondent was under a duty to make adjustments and failed to comply with that duty.

Othersucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's flexible working request in a reasonable manner and based the decision on incorrect facts, in breach of the statutory flexible working provisions.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a flexible working request was not well-founded. The respondent did not dismiss the claimant for this prohibited reason.

Facts

Mr Mughal, a disabled employee of Croner-I Ltd, made a flexible working request. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability and discriminated against him arising from his disability. The respondent also failed to deal with his flexible working request in a reasonable manner and based its decision on incorrect facts.

Decision

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on three claims: discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and improper handling of a flexible working request. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making a flexible working request was dismissed. A remedy hearing is to be listed.

Practical note

Employers must properly handle flexible working requests and make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, as failure to do so can result in successful discrimination claims even if dismissal was not automatically unfair.

Case details

Case number
2302091/2023
Decision date
26 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister