Claimant v McQueens Dairies Ltd

Tribunal found respondent knew of claimant's ADHD from 20 June 2023 but concluded disability was not a not insignificant reason for dismissal. The reasons for dismissal were lateness, absence record, and call avoidance, culminating in being 4.5 hours late on 27 September 2023. An hypothetical comparator in the same circumstances who was not disabled would have been treated the same way.

Tribunal found a prima facie case established due to disparity of treatment and use of 'not a good fit' language which can be redolent of race discrimination. However, respondent discharged the burden by proving race played no part whatsoever in the dismissal. Sole reasons were genuine concerns over lateness, absences, and call avoidance. Extension of probation demonstrated lack of discriminatory mindset.

Tribunal found unfavourable treatment (dismissal) occurred and proceeded on hypothesis that 'time blindness' arose from disability. However, respondent established the defence under s15(2) that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of managing attendance and ensuring client care. Regular non-compliance, failed attempts to remedy, and lack of prospect of improvement meant dismissal was proportionate.

Tribunal found two PCPs (fixed start times and no missed calls criterion) which put disabled persons and the claimant at substantial disadvantage, and respondent knew or ought to have known of this. However, tribunal concluded no reasonable adjustment proposed by claimant would have led to timeous attendance or answering of calls. Flexible working was not feasible as calls ended at 5pm. Simply tolerating poor attendance was not a reasonable adjustment given fundamental purpose of role.

Tribunal did not accept claimant's evidence that she made comments about race discrimination involving Erica Francisco or was a witness to sexual harassment of Person X to Martha McLaughlin. Tribunal preferred Ms McLaughlin's evidence. Even if protected act established, no causal link proven between alleged protected act and any detriment. Extension of probation after alleged disclosure indicated no victimisation.