Claimant v London Underground Limited

Ms Kaur's response letter dated 25 January 2019 was found to constitute harassment related to disability. The tribunal found her letter was terse, dismissive, and created an intimidating/degrading environment for the Claimant by blaming him for not reading emails properly in the context of his disclosed dyslexia, despite his clear footer indicating communication difficulties.

Multiple harassment allegations failed, including allegations against Mr Podjaski for not recalling discussion of depression/suicidal thoughts, Ms Henderson for alleged collusion, Mr Stewart for not upholding grievance, and Mr Smith for various aspects of appeal handling. Tribunal found no evidence of intention to create hostile environment and conduct was not reasonably considered harassment.

All allegations of direct disability discrimination failed. Tribunal found Claimant failed to prove facts from which it could conclude that less favourable treatment occurred because of his disability, including complaints about recruitment information disclosure, grievance handling, and appeal process delays and outcomes.

Victimisation complaints failed. Although respondent accepted Claimant did protected acts in his grievance, the tribunal found no evidence that detrimental treatment (e.g. Mr Stewart not upholding grievance, Mr Smith's letter mentioning late appeal submission) occurred because Claimant had complained of discrimination.

Indirect discrimination claim regarding leave booking and use of carried-over leave failed. Tribunal found the alleged PCP (employees required to take carried over leave at specified time) was not established; the actual PCP (advance leave booking) was out of time (June 2019 discussion, claim February 2021); and no particular disadvantage was proven.

Reasonable adjustments claim failed because the five matters relied upon as PCPs (relating to Mr Smith's handling of grievance appeal) were not neutral provisions, criteria or practices applicable to all staff, but were specific allegations about how the Claimant's individual case was handled. They did not meet the legal definition of a PCP.